P
P
PQ Reviews
Search…
0.7
Finished Reviews
Retired
Powered By GitBook
Moola Process Quality Review
Score: 65%

Overview

This is a Moola Process Quality Review completed on September 30th 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 65%, a FAIL. 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: Celo
Guidance: Ethereum Binance Smart Chain Polygon Avalanche Terra Celo Arbitrum Solana

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%
There is a list of contract addresses in the GitHub repository. However, many of these contracts are dead. More active contracts were found in the Celo block explorer, 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 in excess of 10 transactions a day on contract MoolaStakingRewards 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%
Moola's V2 repository has 1502 commits, expressing its long and storied history in a colourful and expressive manner.
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

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
Software functions are covered in the Moola GitHub.

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

Answer: 50%
Since there is no list of active deployed contracts, it is impossible to determine function documentation coverage. However, there is still a great deal of documentation giving credence to the idea that a significant amount is covered.
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

How to improve this score:

This score can be improved by adding content to the software functions document such that it comprehensively covers the requirements. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document. Using tools that aid traceability detection will help.

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

Answer: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 10% 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%
Software functions are well documented, but there is no explicit traceability to the Moola source code.
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

How to improve this score:

This score can improve by adding traceability from documentation to code such that it is clear where each outlined function is coded in the source code. For reference, check the SecurEth guidelines on traceability.

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: 0%
Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 65% 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: 30%
There is evidence of some incomplete testing.
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
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/moolamarket/moola#flashloan

14) Report of the results (%)

Answer: 70%
There is a test report evident in this section.
Guidance: 100% Detailed test report as described below 70% GitHub code coverage report visible 0% No test report evident

15) Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%
Moola has not undergone formal verification testing.

16) Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%
Evidence of testing and deployment on the Alfajores testnet is documented.

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: 90%
An audit by Bramah Systems was undertaken shortly before Moolah's launch. The results were implemented.
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: 0%
No evidence of a bug bounty program was found.
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: 20%
In the test report, a contract is mentioned that managed Moola upgradeability but there is no identification of this.
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: 25%
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 5% -- one contract is identified as upgradeable. b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 10% -- governance is "expected" to take control of this protocol, but it is unclear who manages it now or what the path to decentralization will be. c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 10% -- some brief mentions of capabilities are documented, but the detail is insufficient.
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%
The description of these controls is not clearly explained in plain language.
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%
No mention of pause control is documented.
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
mport "./IMoolaStakingRewards.sol";
2
import "./ubeswap-farming/synthetix/contracts/RewardsDistributionRecipient.sol";
3
4
contract MoolaStakingRewards is IMoolaStakingRewards, RewardsDistributionRecipient, ReentrancyGuard {
5
using SafeMath for uint256;
6
using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
7
8
/* ========== STATE VARIABLES ========== */
9
10
IERC20 public immutable rewardsToken;
11
IERC20 public immutable stakingToken;
12
IERC20[] public externalRewardsTokens;
13
uint256 public periodFinish = 0;
14
uint256 public rewardRate = 0;
15
uint256 public rewardsDuration = 7 days;
16
uint256 public lastUpdateTime;
17
uint256 public rewardPerTokenStored;
18
19
mapping(address => uint256) public userRewardPerTokenPaid;
20
mapping(address => uint256) public rewards;
21
mapping(address => mapping(IERC20 => uint256)) public externalRewards;
22
23
mapping(IERC20 => uint256) private externalRewardPerTokenStoredWad;
24
mapping(address => mapping(IERC20 => uint256)) private externalUserRewardPerTokenPaidWad;
25
26
uint256 private _totalSupply;
27
mapping(address => uint256) private _balances;
28
29
IStakingRewards public immutable externalStakingRewards;
30
/* ========== CONSTRUCTOR ========== */
31
32
constructor(
33
address _owner,
34
address _rewardsDistribution,
35
IERC20 _rewardsToken,
36
IStakingRewards _externalStakingRewards,
37
IERC20[] memory _externalRewardsTokens
38
) Owned(_owner) {
39
require(_externalRewardsTokens.length > 0, "Empty externalRewardsTokens");
40
rewardsToken = _rewardsToken;
41
rewardsDistribution = _rewardsDistribution;
42
externalStakingRewards = _externalStakingRewards;
43
externalRewardsTokens = _externalRewardsTokens;
44
stakingToken = _externalStakingRewards.stakingToken();
45
}
46
47
/* ========== VIEWS ========== */
48
49
function totalSupply() external view override returns (uint256) {
50
return _totalSupply;
51
}
52
53
function balanceOf(address account) external view override returns (uint256) {
54
return _balances[account];
55
}
56
57
function lastTimeRewardApplicable() public view override returns (uint256) {
58
return Math.min(block.timestamp, periodFinish);
59
}
60
61
function rewardPerToken() public view override returns (uint256) {
62
if (_totalSupply == 0) {
63
return rewardPerTokenStored;
64
}
65
return
66
rewardPerTokenStored.add(
67
lastTimeRewardApplicable().sub(lastUpdateTime).mul(rewardRate).mul(1e18).div(_totalSupply)
68
);
69
}
70
71
function earned(address account) public view override returns (uint256) {
72
return _balances[account].mul(rewardPerToken().sub(userRewardPerTokenPaid[account])).div(1e18).add(rewards[account]);
73
}
74
75
function earnedExternal(address account) public override returns (uint256[] memory result) {
76
IERC20[] memory externalTokens = externalRewardsTokens;
77
uint256[] memory externalOldTotalRewards = new uint256[](externalTokens.length);
78
result = new uint256[](externalTokens.length);
79
80
for (uint256 i = 0; i < externalTokens.length; i++) {
81
externalOldTotalRewards[i] = externalTokens[i].balanceOf(address(this));
82
}
83
84
externalStakingRewards.getReward();
85
86
for (uint256 i = 0; i < externalTokens.length; i++) {
87
IERC20 externalToken = externalTokens[i];
88
uint256 externalTotalRewards = externalToken.balanceOf(address(this));
89
90
uint256 newExternalRewardsAmount = externalTotalRewards.sub(externalOldTotalRewards[i]);
91
92
if (_totalSupply > 0) {
93
externalRewardPerTokenStoredWad[externalToken] =
94
externalRewardPerTokenStoredWad[externalToken].add(newExternalRewardsAmount.mul(1e18).div(_totalSupply));
95
}
96
97
result[i] =
98
_balances[account]
99
.mul(externalRewardPerTokenStoredWad[externalToken].sub(externalUserRewardPerTokenPaidWad[account][externalToken]))
100
.div(1e18).add(externalRewards[account][externalToken]);
101
102
externalUserRewardPerTokenPaidWad[account][externalToken] = externalRewardPerTokenStoredWad[externalToken];
103
externalRewards[account][externalToken] = result[i];
104
}
105
106
return result;
107
}
108
109
function getRewardForDuration() external view override returns (uint256) {
110
return rewardRate.mul(rewardsDuration);
111
}
112
113
/* ========== MUTATIVE FUNCTIONS ========== */
114
115
// XXX: removed notPaused
116
function stake(uint256 amount) external override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
117
require(amount > 0, "Cannot stake 0");
118
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.add(amount);
119
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].add(amount);
120
stakingToken.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
121
stakingToken.approve(address(externalStakingRewards), amount);
122
externalStakingRewards.stake(amount);
123
emit Staked(msg.sender, amount);
124
}
125
126
function withdraw(uint256 amount) public override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
127
require(amount > 0, "Cannot withdraw 0");
128
_totalSupply = _totalSupply.sub(amount);
129
_balances[msg.sender] = _balances[msg.sender].sub(amount);
130
externalStakingRewards.withdraw(amount);
131
stakingToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, amount);
132
emit Withdrawn(msg.sender, amount);
133
}
134
135
function getReward() public override nonReentrant updateReward(msg.sender) {
136
uint256 reward = rewards[msg.sender];
137
IERC20[] memory externalTokens = externalRewardsTokens;
138
139
if (reward > 0) {
140
rewards[msg.sender] = 0;
141
rewardsToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, reward);
142
emit RewardPaid(msg.sender, reward);
143
}
144
145
for (uint256 i = 0; i < externalTokens.length; i++) {
146
IERC20 externalToken = externalTokens[i];
147
uint256 externalReward = externalRewards[msg.sender][externalToken];
148
if (externalReward > 0) {
149
externalRewards[msg.sender][externalToken] = 0;
150
externalToken.safeTransfer(msg.sender, externalReward);
151
emit ExternalRewardPaid(msg.sender, externalReward);
152
}
153
}
154
}
155
156
function exit() external override {
157
withdraw(_balances[msg.sender]);
158
getReward();
159
}
160
161
/* ========== RESTRICTED FUNCTIONS ========== */
162
163
function notifyRewardAmount(uint256 reward) external override onlyRewardsDistribution updateReward(address(0)) {
164
if (block.timestamp >= periodFinish) {
165
rewardRate = reward.div(rewardsDuration);
166
} else {
167
uint256 remaining = periodFinish.sub(block.timestamp);
168
uint256 leftover = remaining.mul(rewardRate);
169
rewardRate = reward.add(leftover).div(rewardsDuration);
170
}
171
172
// Ensure the provided reward amount is not more than the balance in the contract.
173
// This keeps the reward rate in the right range, preventing overflows due to
174
// very high values of rewardRate in the earned and rewardsPerToken functions;
175
// Reward + leftover must be less than 2^256 / 10^18 to avoid overflow.
176
uint balance = rewardsToken.balanceOf(address(this));
177
require(rewardRate <= balance.div(rewardsDuration), "Provided reward too high");
178
179
lastUpdateTime = block.timestamp;
180
periodFinish = block.timestamp.add(rewardsDuration);
181
emit RewardAdded(reward);
182
}
183
184
// End rewards emission earlier
185
function updatePeriodFinish(uint timestamp) external onlyOwner updateReward(address(0)) {
186
require(timestamp > lastUpdateTime, "Invalid new period finish");
187
periodFinish = timestamp;
188
}
189
190
// Added to support recovering LP Rewards from other systems such as BAL to be distributed to holders
191
function recoverERC20(address tokenAddress, uint256 tokenAmount) external onlyOwner {
192
require(tokenAddress != address(stakingToken), "Cannot withdraw the staking token");
193
IERC20(tokenAddress).safeTransfer(owner, tokenAmount);
194
emit Recovered(tokenAddress, tokenAmount);
195
}
196
197
function setRewardsDuration(uint256 _rewardsDuration) external onlyOwner {
198
require(
199
block.timestamp > periodFinish,
200
"Previous rewards period must be complete before changing the duration for the new period"
201
);
202
rewardsDuration = _rewardsDuration;
203
emit RewardsDurationUpdated(rewardsDuration);
204
}
205
206
/* ========== MODIFIERS ========== */
207
208
modifier updateReward(address account) {
209
rewardPerTokenStored = rewardPerToken();
210
lastUpdateTime = lastTimeRewardApplicable();
211
if (account != address(0)) {
212
rewards[account] = earned(account);
213
userRewardPerTokenPaid[account] = rewardPerTokenStored;
214
earnedExternal(account);
215
}
216
_;
217
}
218
219
/* ========== EVENTS ========== */
220
221
event RewardAdded(uint256 reward);
222
event Staked(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
223
event Withdrawn(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
224
event RewardPaid(address indexed user, uint256 reward);
225
event ExternalRewardPaid(address indexed user, uint256 reward);
226
event RewardsDurationUpdated(uint256 newDuration);
227
event Recovered(address token, uint256 amount);
Copied!

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
18
6697
424
566
5707
132
Comments to Code 566/5707 = 10%

Javascript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
18
4660
864
89
3707
158
Tests to Code 3707/5707 = 65%
Last modified 18d ago