logo
bg_imgbg_imgbg_imgbg_img
exclamation mark iconReport an issue

If you notice some outdated information please let us know!

close icon
Name
Email
Your message
arrow-left

Wonderland

22%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Wonderland

Final score:22%
Date:18 Jan 2022
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:David J. Desjardins
PQR Score:22%

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.

The blockchain used by this protocol
Arbitrum
Avalanche
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
90%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.Yes
17%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.49%
10.0%
0%
11.0%
12.0%
13.No
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
0%
17.0%
18.0%
10%
19.70%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
Total:22%

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

90%

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? (%)

Answer: 100%

Token addresses can be found in the Wonderland GitBooks, as seen in the Appendix.

Percentage Score 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 well over 10 transactions a day on contract TimeTreasury.sol, as indicated in the Appendix.​

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

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"

Score Guidance:
Yes
There is 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.
No
For teams with private repositories.

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

Answer: 0%

​Wonderland's Contracts have 1 branch and 6 commits.

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).

Percentage Score 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

Daniele Sesta is the co-founder of Wonderland, and is public at https://twitter.com/danielesesta.

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

17%

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

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

Answer: Yes

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

Answer: No

There is no software function documentation.

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

Answer: 0%

There is no software function documentation.

Percentage Score 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: 49%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 49% commenting to code (CtC).

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage 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

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

Answer: 0%

There is no software-focused documentation.

Percentage Score 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

0%

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

Answer: 0%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, the testing to code (TtC) is n/a as there is no evidence of testing to be found in the repository.

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.

Percentage Score 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

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

Answer: 0%

No evidence of testing or auditing, henceforth the code can be interpreted as fully uncovered.

Percentage 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

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

Answer: No

No scripts or instructions to run tests. No evidence of tests to be found either.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No testing to report.

Percentage Score 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%

No evidence of formal verification.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of stress testing environment.

Security

0%

This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.

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

Answer: 0%

No evidence of audits.

Percentage Score 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 bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of any bug bounty, nor an active program with ImmuneFi.

Percentage Score 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

10%

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 (%)

Answer: 70%

Percentage Score 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: 0%

Information is not present.

Percentage Score 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%

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

Answer: 0%

Information is not available.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

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

Answer: 0%

No information on pause control available.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 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

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

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 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.

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: AGPL-3.0-or-later
2pragma solidity 0.7.5;
34library SafeMath {
5    /**
6     * @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, reverting on
7     * overflow.
8     *
9     * Counterpart to Solidity's `+` operator.
10     *
11     * Requirements:
12     *
13     * - Addition cannot overflow.
14     */
15    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
16        uint256 c = a + b;
17        require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
1819        return c;
20    }
21    function add32(uint32 a, uint32 b) internal pure returns (uint32) {
22        uint32 c = a + b;
23        require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
2425        return c;
26    }
2728    /**
29     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting on
30     * overflow (when the result is negative).
31     *
32     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
33     *
34     * Requirements:
35     *
36     * - Subtraction cannot overflow.
37     */
38    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
39        return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction overflow");
40    }
4142    /**
43     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting with custom message on
44     * overflow (when the result is negative).
45     *
46     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
47     *
48     * Requirements:
49     *
50     * - Subtraction cannot overflow.
51     */
52    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
53        require(b <= a, errorMessage);
54        uint256 c = a - b;
5556        return c;
57    }
5859    /**
60     * @dev Returns the multiplication of two unsigned integers, reverting on
61     * overflow.
62     *
63     * Counterpart to Solidity's `*` operator.
64     *
65     * Requirements:
66     *
67     * - Multiplication cannot overflow.
68     */
69    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
70        // Gas optimization: this is cheaper than requiring 'a' not being zero, but the
71        // benefit is lost if 'b' is also tested.
72        // See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/522
73        if (a == 0) {
74            return 0;
75        }
7677        uint256 c = a * b;
78        require(c / a == b, "SafeMath: multiplication overflow");
7980        return c;
81    }
8283    /**
84     * @dev Returns the integer division of two unsigned integers. Reverts on
85     * division by zero. The result is rounded towards zero.
86     *
87     * Counterpart to Solidity's `/` operator. Note: this function uses a
88     * `revert` opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity
89     * uses an invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
90     *
91     * Requirements:
92     *
93     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
94     */
95    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
96        return div(a, b, "SafeMath: division by zero");
97    }
9899    /**
100     * @dev Returns the integer division of two unsigned integers. Reverts with custom message on
101     * division by zero. The result is rounded towards zero.
102     *
103     * Counterpart to Solidity's `/` operator. Note: this function uses a
104     * `revert` opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity
105     * uses an invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
106     *
107     * Requirements:
108     *
109     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
110     */
111    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
112        require(b > 0, errorMessage);
113        uint256 c = a / b;
114        assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn't hold
115116        return c;
117    }
118}
119120interface IERC20 {
121    function decimals() external view returns (uint8);
122  /**
123   * @dev Returns the amount of tokens in existence.
124   */
125  function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
126127  /**
128   * @dev Returns the amount of tokens owned by `account`.
129   */
130  function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
131132  /**
133   * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from the caller's account to `recipient`.
134   *
135   * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
136   *
137   * Emits a {Transfer} event.
138   */
139  function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
140141  /**
142   * @dev Returns the remaining number of tokens that `spender` will be
143   * allowed to spend on behalf of `owner` through {transferFrom}. This is
144   * zero by default.
145   *
146   * This value changes when {approve} or {transferFrom} are called.
147   */
148  function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
149150  /**
151   * @dev Sets `amount` as the allowance of `spender` over the caller's tokens.
152   *
153   * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
154   *
155   * IMPORTANT: Beware that changing an allowance with this method brings the risk
156   * that someone may use both the old and the new allowance by unfortunate
157   * transaction ordering. One possible solution to mitigate this race
158   * condition is to first reduce the spender's allowance to 0 and set the
159   * desired value afterwards:
160   * https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/20#issuecomment-263524729
161   *
162   * Emits an {Approval} event.
163   */
164  function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
165166  /**
167   * @dev Moves `amount` tokens from `sender` to `recipient` using the
168   * allowance mechanism. `amount` is then deducted from the caller's
169   * allowance.
170   *
171   * Returns a boolean value indicating whether the operation succeeded.
172   *
173   * Emits a {Transfer} event.
174   */
175  function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
176177  /*
178   * @dev Emitted when `value` tokens are moved from one account (`from`) to
179   * another (`to`).
180   *
181   * Note that `value` may be zero.
182   */
183  event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
184185  /*
186   * @dev Emitted when the allowance of a `spender` for an `owner` is set by
187   * a call to {approve}. `value` is the new allowance.
188   */
189  event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
190}
191192library Address {
193    /**
194     * @dev Returns true if `account` is a contract.
195     *
196     * [IMPORTANT]
197     * ====
198     * It is unsafe to assume that an address for which this function returns
199     * false is an externally-owned account (EOA) and not a contract.
200     *

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
12
7836
1192
2182
4462
614

Comments to Code: 2182 / 4462 =  49 %