This is a $BASED Process Quality Audit completed on 28 August, 2020. It was performed using the Process Audit process (version 0.5) and is documented here. The audit was performed by ShinkaRex of Caliburn Consulting. Check out our Telegram.

The final score of the audit is 10%, a terrible score. The breakdown of the scoring is in Scoring Appendix.

Summary of the Process

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

1. Here is my smart contract on the blockchain

2. You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code

3. Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does

4. Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract

5. Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

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, 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. 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.

Executing Code Verification

This section looks at the code deployed on the Mainnet that gets audited and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here. This audit will answer the questions;

1. Is the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

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

3. Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

4. Does the code match a tagged version in the code hosting platform? (%)

5. Is the software repository healthy? (%)

Is the executing code address(s) readily available? (Y/N)

Some address'es are available, such as 0x5BB622ba7b2F09BF23F1a9b509cd210A818c53d7 but the contracts they hold these are not in the GitHub. So, the purpose of giving the address' is lost. These address reduce trust, they do not increase it.

How to improve this score

Make the ethereum addresses of the smart contract utilized by your application available on either your website or your github (in the README for instance). Ensure the address is up to date. This is a very important question wrt to the final score.

Is the code actively being used? (%)

Activity is in excess of 100 transactions a day, as indicated in the Appendix for the address listed above.

Percentage Score 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

Are the Contract(s) Verified/Verifiable? (Y/N)

0x5BB622ba7b2F09BF23F1a9b509cd210A818c53d7 is the Etherscan verified contract address.

How to improve this score

Ensure that the deployed code is verified as described in this article for Etherscan or ETHPM. Improving this score may require redeployment.

Does the code match a tagged version on a code hosting platform? (%)

The code from the pool is not in the matched GitHub. In fact I could not find any matches between the two modules on the GitHub and the execution contracts.

Guidance:

100% Code matches and Repository was clearly labelled 60 % Code matches but no labelled repository. Repository was found manually 30% Code does match perfectly and repository was found manually 0% Matching Code could not be found

GitHub address : https://github.com/cryptoghoulz/based-contracts/tree/master/contracts​

Deployed contracts in the following file;

Matching Repository: Mone

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Ensure an appropriately labeled tag exists corresponding to deployment dates. Release tags are clearly communicated.

Is development software repository healthy? (%)

There no branches, just 2 files and it is only 10 days old.

How to improve this score

Ensure there is a clearly labelled repository holding all the contracts, documentation and tests for the deployed code. Continue to test and perform other verification activities after deployment, including routine maintenance updating to new releases of testing and deployment tools.

Documentation

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

Required questions are;

1. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

2. Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

3. Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

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

5. Is it possible to trace software requirements to the implementation in code (%)

Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Location: ??

How to improve this score

Ensure the white paper is available for download from your website or at least the software repository. Ideally update the whitepaper to meet the capabilities of your present application.

Are the basic application requirements documented? (Y/N)

Location: ???

How to improve this score

Write the document based on the deployed code. For guidance, refer to the SecurEth System Description Document.

Do the requirements fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

With no documentation, it cannot cover requirements.

How to improve this score

This score can improve by adding content to the requirements 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.

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

The code uses NATSpec commenting, but only minimal.

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 11% commenting to code.

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.

Is it possible to trace requirements to the implementation in code (%)

With no documentation there can be no traceability.

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 requirements to code such that it is clear where each requirement is coded. 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;

1. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

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

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

4. Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

5. Report of the results (%)

6. Formal Verification test done (%)

7. Stress Testing environment (%)

Is there a Full test suite? (%)

There are no tests, none, not even a directory.

How to improve this score

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

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

With no tests, there is no coverage.

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 improve by adding tests achieving full code coverage. A clear report and scripts in the software repository will guarantee a high score.

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

Nothing.

How to improve this score

Add the scripts to the repository and ensure they work. Ask an outsider to create the environment and run the tests. Improve the scripts and docs based on their feedback.

Packaged with the deployed code (Y/N)

Nothing.

How to improve this score

Improving this score requires redeployment of the code, with the tests. This score gives credit to those who test their code before deployment and release them together. If a developer adds tests after deployment they can gain full points for all test elements except this one.

Report of the results (%)

No tests, no report

How to improve this score

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

Formal Verification test done (%)

Nothing.

Stress Testing environment (%)

No evidence of testnets at all.

Audits

No audits, of course

Guidance:

1. Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (100%)

2. Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required (90%)

3. Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public. (70%)

4. No audit performed (20%)

5. Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed (0%)

Appendices

Author Details

The author of this audit is Rex of Caliburn Consulting.

Email : rex@defisafety.com 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 Audits are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development.

Career wise I am a business development manager for an avionics supplier.

Scoring Appendix

Code Used Appendix

Example Code Appendix

/**
 * @title Orchestrator
 * @notice The orchestrator is the main entry point for rebase operations. It coordinates the policy
 * actions with external consumers.
 */
contract Orchestrator is Ownable {
    using SafeMath for uint256;
​
    struct Transaction {
        bool enabled;
        address destination;
        bytes data;
    }
​
    event TransactionFailed(address indexed destination, uint index, bytes data);
​
    // Stable ordering is not guaranteed.
    Transaction[] public transactions;
​
    UFragmentsPolicy public policy;
    YearnRewardsI public pool0;
    YearnRewardsI public pool1;
    ERC20Detailed public based;
    address public deployer;
    uint256 public rebaseRequiredSupply;
​
    constructor () public {
        deployer = msg.sender;
    }
    /**
     * @param policy_ Address of the UFragments policy.
     * @param pool0_ Address of the YearnRewards pool0.
     * @param pool1_ Address of the YearnRewards pool1.
     * @param based_ Address of the Based token.
     */
    function initialize(address policy_, address pool0_, address pool1_, address based_, uint256 rebaseRequiredSupply_) public initializer {
        // only deployer can initialize
        require(deployer == msg.sender);
​
        Ownable.initialize(msg.sender);
        policy = UFragmentsPolicy(policy_);
        pool0 = YearnRewardsI(pool0_);
        pool1 = YearnRewardsI(pool1_);
        based = ERC20Detailed(based_);
        rebaseRequiredSupply = rebaseRequiredSupply_;
    }
​
    /**
     * @notice Main entry point to initiate a rebase operation.
     *         The Orchestrator calls rebase on the policy and notifies downstream applications.
     *         Contracts are guarded from calling, to avoid flash loan attacks on liquidity
     *         providers.
     *         If a transaction in the transaction list reverts, it is swallowed and the remaining
     *         transactions are executed.
     */
    function rebase()
        external
    {
        // wait for `rebaseRequiredSupply` token supply to be rewarded until rebase is possible
        // timeout after 4 weeks if people don't claim rewards so it's not stuck
        uint256 rewardsDistributed = pool0.totalRewards().add(pool1.totalRewards());
        require(rewardsDistributed >= rebaseRequiredSupply || block.timestamp >= pool0.starttime() + 4 weeks);
​
        require(msg.sender == tx.origin);  // solhint-disable-line avoid-tx-origin
​
        policy.rebase();
​
        for (uint i = 0; i < transactions.length; i++) {
            Transaction storage t = transactions[i];
            if (t.enabled) {
                bool result =
                    externalCall(t.destination, t.data);
                if (!result) {
                    emit TransactionFailed(t.destination, i, t.data);
                    revert("Transaction Failed");
                }
            }
        }
    }
​
    /**
     * @notice Adds a transaction that gets called for a downstream receiver of rebases
     * @param destination Address of contract destination
     * @param data Transaction data payload
     */
    function addTransaction(address destination, bytes data)
        external
        onlyOwner
    {
        transactions.push(Transaction({
            enabled: true,
            destination: destination,
            data: data
        }));
    }
​
    /**
     * @param index Index of transaction to remove.
     *              Transaction ordering may have changed since adding.
     */
    function removeTransaction(uint index)
        external
        onlyOwner
    {
        require(index < transactions.length, "index out of bounds");
​
        if (index < transactions.length - 1) {
            transactions[index] = transactions[transactions.length - 1];
        }
​
        transactions.length--;
    }
​
    /**
     * @param index Index of transaction. Transaction ordering may have changed since adding.
     * @param enabled True for enabled, false for disabled.
     */
    function setTransactionEnabled(uint index, bool enabled)
        external
        onlyOwner
    {
        require(index < transactions.length, "index must be in range of stored tx list");
        transactions[index].enabled = enabled;
    }
​
    /**
     * @return Number of transactions, both enabled and disabled, in transactions list.
     */
    function transactionsSize()
        external
        view
        returns (uint256)
    {
        return transactions.length;
    }
​
    /**
     * @dev wrapper to call the encoded transactions on downstream consumers.
     * @param destination Address of destination contract.
     * @param data The encoded data payload.
     * @return True on success
     */
    function externalCall(address destination, bytes data)
        internal
        returns (bool)
    {
        bool result;
        assembly {  // solhint-disable-line no-inline-assembly
            // "Allocate" memory for output
            // (0x40 is where "free memory" pointer is stored by convention)
            let outputAddress := mload(0x40)
​
            // First 32 bytes are the padded length of data, so exclude that
            let dataAddress := add(data, 32)
​
            result := call(
                // 34710 is the value that solidity is currently emitting
                // It includes callGas (700) + callVeryLow (3, to pay for SUB)
                // + callValueTransferGas (9000) + callNewAccountGas
                // (25000, in case the destination address does not exist and needs creating)
                sub(gas, 34710),
​
​
                destination,
                0, // transfer value in wei
                dataAddress,
                mload(data),  // Size of the input, in bytes. Stored in position 0 of the array.
                outputAddress,
                0  // Output is ignored, therefore the output size is zero
            )
        }
        return result;
    }
}
​

SLOC Appendix

Solidity Contracts

Comments to Code 12/ 106 = 2%

Javascript Tests

Tests to Code 1358 / 1959 = 70%