P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Akropolis 0.7 Process Quality Review

Overview

This is an Akropolis Process Quality Review completed on September 20th 2021. It was performed using the Process Review process (version 0.7.3) and is documented here. The review was performed by Nick of DeFiSafety. Check out our Telegram.
The final score of the review is 76%, a PASS. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix. For our purposes, a pass is 70%.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
    Here are my smart contracts on the blockchain
    Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
    Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
    Here are the audit(s) performed on my code by third party experts
    Here are the admin controls and strategies

Disclaimer

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.
Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.
This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Chain

This section indicates the blockchain used by this protocol.
Chain: Ethereum
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra

Code and Team

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This review will answer the following questions:
1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%) 2) Is the code actively being used? (%) 3) Is there a public software repository? (Y/N) 4) Is there a development history visible? (%) 5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

1) Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 100%
They are available at website in the README.md of the Delphi GitHub repository at https://github.com/akropolisio/delphi, as indicated in the Appendix.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc 20% Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find 0% Executing addresses could not be found

2) Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 100%
Activity is over 10 transactions a day, including internal, on contract AdminUpgradeabilityProxy.sol (Staking Contract), as indicated in the Appendix.

Guidance:

100% More than 10 transactions a day 70% More than 10 transactions a week 40% More than 10 transactions a month 10% Less than 10 transactions a month 0% No activity

3) Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
Is there a public software repository with the code at a minimum, but also normally test and scripts. Even if the repository was created just to hold the files and has just 1 transaction, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No".

4) Is there a development history visible? (%)

Answer: 100%
This protocol has a rich development history, with some 515 commits and 68 separate branches.
This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).
Guidance: 100% Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches 70% Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches 50% Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches 30% Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches 0% Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5) Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
Required questions are;
6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N) 7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N) 8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%) 9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%) 10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

6) Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

7) Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
This whitepaper details the basic software functions.

8) Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 100%
The software documentation is impressive and covers all deployed contracts.
Guidance:
100% All contracts and functions documented 80% Only the major functions documented 79-1% Estimate of the level of software documentation 0% No software documentation

9) Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 59%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 59% commenting to code (CtC).
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
Guidance: 100% CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code 90-70% CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code 60-20% CtC > 20 Some useful commenting 0% CtC < 20 No useful commenting

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding comments to the deployed code such that it comprehensively covers the code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth Software Requirements.

10) Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 60%
Akropolis' code is clearly outlined in the docs and can be non explicitly traced in their github repository for each of their individual projects.
Guidance: 100% Clear explicit traceability between code and documentation at a requirement level for all code 60% Clear association between code and documents via non explicit traceability 40% Documentation lists all the functions and describes their functions 0% No connection between documentation and code

Testing

This section looks at the software testing available. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
11) Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%) 12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%) 13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N) 14) Report of the results (%) 15) Formal Verification test done (%) 16) Stress Testing environment (%)

11) Is there a Full test suite? (%)

Answer: 80%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 93% testing to code (TtC).
This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement is the final deciding factor.
Guidance: 100% TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible 80% TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible 40% TtC < 80% Some tests visible 0% No tests obvious

How to improve this score:

This score can improved by adding tests to fully cover the code. Document what is covered by traceability or test results in the software repository.

12) Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 50%
Documented code coverage could not be found, but there is clear evidence of robust testing in the TtC score.
Guidance: 100% Documented full coverage 99-51% Value of test coverage from documented results 50% No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a reasonably complete set of tests 30% Some tests evident but not complete 0% No test for coverage seen

How to improve this score:

This score can improved by adding tests that achieve full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

13) Scripts and instructions to run the tests (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%
No test report was found.
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

How to improve this score

Add a report with the results. The test scripts should generate the report or elements of it.

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
No formal verification was found.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
Akropolis has been deployed in full on the Rinkeby testnet.

Security

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document. This section answers the following questions;
17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%) 18) Is the bounty value acceptably high?

17) Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 100%
MythX published a Delphi staking report after the mainnet launch.
Notes On Audit Results:
The MythX audit underlined countless low-severity issues in the Akropolis' Delphi smart contracts. However, none of them identify if they have been corrected or not, which is concerning.
All of the fixes underline in both Certik reports have been mitigated or completely fixed.
The MyxBytes audit underlined several medium and major issues. However, all of them have since been fixed by the Akropolis team.
Guidance: 100% Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 90% Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required 70% Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50% Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented 20% No audit performed 0% Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address' not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code

18) Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 20%
The bounty program offered by Akropolis has a maximum reward of $40,000.
Guidance:
100% Bounty is 10% TVL or at least $1M AND active program (see below) 90% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k AND active program 80% Bounty is 5% TVL or at least 500k 70% Bounty is 100k or over AND active program 60% Bounty is 100k or over 50% Bounty is 50k or over AND active program 40% Bounty is 50k or over 20% Bug bounty program bounty is less than 50k 0% No bug bounty program offered
An active program means that a third party (such as Immunefi) is actively driving hackers to the site. An inactive program would be static mentions on the docs.

Access Controls

This section covers the documentation of special access controls for a DeFi protocol. The admin access controls are the contracts that allow updating contracts or coefficients in the protocol. Since these contracts can allow the protocol admins to "change the rules", complete disclosure of capabilities is vital for user's transparency. It is explained in this document. The questions this section asks are as follow;
19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the admin controls? 20) Is the information clear and complete? 21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments? 22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests?

19) Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 0%
Governance information was found at https://wiki.akropolis.io/sparta/#akro-governance, however there are no details explicitly detailing what the admins have control over.
Guidance: 100% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find 70% Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking 40% Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled 20% Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled 0% Admin Control information could not be found

20) Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 60%
a) Smart contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable through the voting process.
b) Defined roles (Borrower, and LP) are outlined.
c) What can be changed in contracts is described, but not to what extent.
Guidance: All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above. An example is enclosed.

21) Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 30%
Governance information is written in a technical way that does not communicate to users about how/why their funds are safe.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable 90% Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software l language 30% Description all in software specific language 0% No admin control information could not be found

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

22) Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%
There is no pause control documentation.
Guidance: 100% All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 100% Pause control(s) are clearly documented and there is records of at least one test within 3 months 80% Pause control(s) explained clearly but no evidence of regular tests 40% Pause controls mentioned with no detail on capability or tests 0% Pause control not documented or explained

How to improve this score:

Create a document that covers the items described above in plain language that investors can understand. An example is enclosed.

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.
Email : [email protected] Twitter : @defisafety
I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education. It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process. Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development.
Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.
DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

Scoring Appendix

Executing Code Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

1
pragma solidity ^0.5.12;
2
3
import "../common/Base.sol";
4
import "../interfaces/core/CoreInterface.sol";
5
import "../utils/AddressMap.sol";
6
7
contract Pool is Base, CoreInterface {
8
9
/* Short description */
10
string public name;
11
string public description;
12
address public founder;
13
14
/* Modules map */
15
AddressMap.Data modules;
16
17
using AddressList for AddressList.Data;
18
using AddressMap for AddressMap.Data;
19
20
/* Module constant mapping */
21
mapping(bytes32 => bool) public is_constant;
22
23
/**
24
* @dev Contract ABI storage
25
* the contract interface contains source URI
26
*/
27
mapping(address => string) public abiOf;
28
29
function initialize() public initializer {
30
Base.initialize();
31
founder = _msgSender();
32
}
33
34
function setMetadata(string memory _name, string memory _description) public onlyOwner {
35
name = _name;
36
description = _description;
37
}
38
39
/**
40
* @dev Set new module for given name
41
* @param _name infrastructure node name
42
* @param _module infrastructure node address
43
* @param _constant have a `true` value when you create permanent name of module
44
*/
45
function set(string memory _name, address _module, bool _constant) public onlyOwner {
46
47
require(!isConstant(_name), "Pool: module address can not be replaced");
48
49
// Notify
50
if (modules.get(_name) != ZERO_ADDRESS)
51
emit ModuleReplaced(_name, modules.get(_name), _module);
52
else
53
emit ModuleAdded(_name, _module);
54
55
// Set module in the map
56
modules.set(_name, _module);
57
58
// Register constant flag
59
is_constant[keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_name))] = _constant;
60
}
61
62
/**
63
* @dev Remove module by name
64
* @param _name module name
65
*/
66
function remove(string memory _name) public onlyOwner {
67
require(!isConstant(_name), "Pool: module can not be removed");
68
69
// Notify
70
emit ModuleRemoved(_name, modules.get(_name));
71
72
// Remove module
73
modules.remove(_name);
74
}
75
76
/**
77
* @dev Fast module exist check
78
* @param _module is a module address
79
* @return `true` wnen core contains module
80
*/
81
function contains(address _module) public view returns (bool)
82
{
83
return modules.items.contains(_module);
84
}
85
86
/**
87
* @dev Modules counter
88
* @return count of modules in core
89
*/
90
function size() public view returns (uint)
91
{
92
return modules.size();
93
}
94
95
/**
96
* @dev Check for module have permanent name
97
* @param _name is a module name
98
* @return `true` when module have permanent name
99
*/
100
function isConstant(string memory _name) public view returns (bool)
101
{
102
return is_constant[keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_name))];
103
}
104
105
/**
106
* @dev Get module by name
107
* @param _name is module name
108
* @return module address
109
*/
110
function get(string memory _name) public view returns (address)
111
{
112
return modules.get(_name);
113
}
114
115
/**
116
* @dev Get module name by address
117
* @param _module is a module address
118
* @return module name
119
*/
120
function getName(address _module) public view returns (string memory)
121
{
122
return modules.keyOf[_module];
123
}
124
125
/**
126
* @dev Get first module
127
* @return first address
128
*/
129
function first() public view returns (address)
130
{
131
return modules.items.head;
132
}
133
134
/**
135
* @dev Get next module
136
* @param _current is an current address
137
* @return next address
138
*/
139
function next(address _current) public view returns (address)
140
{
141
return modules.items.next(_current);
142
}
143
144
}
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
12
41
420
846
1441
181
Comments to Code 846/1441 = 59%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
5
1552
167
38
1347
5
Tests to Code 1347/1441 = 93%
Last modified 1mo ago