If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.7)
QuickSwap Process Quality Review
FAIL
Scoring Appendix
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
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.
- Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
- You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
- Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
- Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
- Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts
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 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.
Code And Team
68%
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.
1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)
They are available at website https://info.quickswap.exchange/home (which you get by clicking charts on the Home page?!) and click GitHub and look in the ReadMe of https://github.com/QuickSwap/quickswap-core as indicated in the Appendix.
2. Is the code actively being used? (%)
Activity is 35,000 transactions a day on contract UniswapV2Router02, as indicated in the Appendix.
3. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)
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? (%)
With 258 commits on one branch, this is a healthy repository.
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).
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)? (Y/N)
Names in Github are public.
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
6%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
None found.
7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)
While they mention in the GitHub that the Uniswap docs are relevant, no docs have been developed.
8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)
No software documentation evident.
9. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)
The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.
10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)
No traceability.
Testing
31%
11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)
Test to Code is 75%
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.
12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)
Testing evident.
13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)
Some found in repo.
14. Report of the results (%)
No test report is evident
15. Formal Verification test done (%)
Nope
16. Stress Testing environment (%)
None
Security
18%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)
None.
18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)
No mention.
Access Controls
0%
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.
19. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)
No information to be found
20. Is the information clear and complete (%)
None
21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)
No info
22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)
No info
Appendices
1pragma solidity =0.5.16;
2
3import './interfaces/IUniswapV2Factory.sol';
4import './UniswapV2Pair.sol';
5
6contract UniswapV2Factory is IUniswapV2Factory {
7 address public feeTo;
8 address public feeToSetter;
9
10 mapping(address => mapping(address => address)) public getPair;
11 address[] public allPairs;
12
13 event PairCreated(address indexed token0, address indexed token1, address pair, uint);
14
15 constructor(address _feeToSetter) public {
16 feeToSetter = _feeToSetter;
17 }
18
19 function allPairsLength() external view returns (uint) {
20 return allPairs.length;
21 }
22
23 function createPair(address tokenA, address tokenB) external returns (address pair) {
24 require(tokenA != tokenB, 'UniswapV2: IDENTICAL_ADDRESSES');
25 (address token0, address token1) = tokenA < tokenB ? (tokenA, tokenB) : (tokenB, tokenA);
26 require(token0 != address(0), 'UniswapV2: ZERO_ADDRESS');
27 require(getPair[token0][token1] == address(0), 'UniswapV2: PAIR_EXISTS'); // single check is sufficient
28 bytes memory bytecode = type(UniswapV2Pair).creationCode;
29 bytes32 salt = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(token0, token1));
30 assembly {
31 pair create2(0, add(bytecode, 32), mload(bytecode), salt)
32 }
33 IUniswapV2Pair(pair).initialize(token0, token1);
34 getPair[token0][token1] = pair;
35 getPair[token1][token0] = pair; // populate mapping in the reverse direction
36 allPairs.push(pair);
37 emit PairCreated(token0, token1, pair, allPairs.length);
38 }
39
40 function setFeeTo(address _feeTo) external {
41 require(msg.sender == feeToSetter, 'UniswapV2: FORBIDDEN');
42 feeTo = _feeTo;
43 }
44
45 function setFeeToSetter(address _feeToSetter) external {
46 require(msg.sender == feeToSetter, 'UniswapV2: FORBIDDEN');
47 feeToSetter = _feeToSetter;
48 }
49}
50
Solidity Contracts
Comments to Code: 416 / 713 = 58 %
JavaScript Tests
Tests to Code: 538 / 713 = 75 %