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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Abracadabra.money

43%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Abracadabra.money

Final score:43%
Date:13 Oct 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:43%

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
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Fantom
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
14%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.28%
10.0%
47%
11.80%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
26%
17.20%
18.70%
30%
19.40%
20.55%
21.30%
22.0%
Total:43%

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 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Code And Team

100%

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%

They are available at website https://docs.abracadabra.money/our-ecosystem/our-cauldrons-contract, as indicated 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 more than 10 transactions a day on contract Abracadabra.Money: yvstETH Market, 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: 100%

At 79 commits and 11 branches, this repository's history is just shy of spellbinding but is certainly well on the way to becoming as enchanting as DeFi expects.

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

The founder of Abracadraba, Daniele Sesta, 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

14%

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

Although dApp instructions are identified, this is not considered as software function (code) documentation.

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

Answer: 0%

While the dApp functions are identified, there is no explanation of code used in the deployed contracts. This requires greater elaboration on how the code performs the functions that the docs identify.

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: 28%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 29% 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%

Documentation identifies the contracts and what they do, but does not reference any code in the process.

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

47%

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

Answer: 80%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 108% 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.

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: 50%

No code coverage testing was found, but evidently some testing has occurred.

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: Yes

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No report results were found.

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 formal verification was found.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

No evidence of stress testing on a testnet was found.

Security

26%

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

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

Answer: 20%

Abracadabra is unaudited. A changelog was provided to the DeFiSafety team, though this was not circulated to the public meaning we cannot factor this into the score.

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: 70%

Abracadabra offers an active program with a top bounty of $100K.

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

30%

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: 40%

A mention that the protocol's governance decisions are subject to team consideration means that the protocol is controlled by the anonymous team. Additional governance info can be found in the tokenomics section of their docs, as well as in this Medium article.

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: 55%

a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 15% -- certain protocol parameters are clearly labelled as upgradeable through voting in this Medium article. However, the specific contracts are not explicitly mentioned.  b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% -- admin ownership is implied. In addition, MultiSig info can be found at https://docs.abracadabra.money/tokens/tokenomics.  c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 10% -- This Medium article describes what parameters can be changed within the protocol, but doesn't touch upon the scope of these capabilities for change.

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: 30%

Although there is an acceptable amount of access control information, none of it relates directly to user investment safety, and it therefore more software-specific language.

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 pause control documentation was found.

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.

1contract sSpell is IERC20, Domain {
2    using BoringMath for uint256;
3    using BoringMath128 for uint128;
4    using BoringERC20 for IERC20;
56    string public constant symbol = "sSPELL";
7    string public constant name = "Staked Spell Tokens";
8    uint8 public constant decimals = 18;
9    uint256 public override totalSupply;
10    uint256 private constant LOCK_TIME = 24 hours;
1112    IERC20 public immutable token;
1314    constructor(IERC20 _token) public {
15        token = _token;
16    }
1718    struct User {
19        uint128 balance;
20        uint128 lockedUntil;
21    }
2223    /// @notice owner > balance mapping.
24    mapping(address => User) public users;
25    /// @notice owner > spender > allowance mapping.
26    mapping(address => mapping(address => uint256)) public override allowance;
27    /// @notice owner > nonce mapping. Used in `permit`.
28    mapping(address => uint256) public nonces;
2930    event Transfer(address indexed _from, address indexed _to, uint256 _value);
31    event Approval(address indexed _owner, address indexed _spender, uint256 _value);
3233    function balanceOf(address user) public view override returns (uint256 balance) {
34        return users[user].balance;
35    }
3637    function _transfer(
38        address from,
39        address to,
40        uint256 shares
41    ) internal {
42        User memory fromUser = users[from];
43        require(block.timestamp >= fromUser.lockedUntil, "Locked");
44        if (shares != 0) {
45            require(fromUser.balance >= shares, "Low balance");
46            if (from != to) {
47                require(to != address(0), "Zero address"); // Moved down so other failed calls safe some gas
48                User memory toUser = users[to];
49                users[from].balance = fromUser.balance - shares.to128(); // Underflow is checked
50                users[to].balance = toUser.balance + shares.to128(); // Can't overflow because totalSupply would be greater than 2^128-1;
51            }
52        }
53        emit Transfer(from, to, shares);
54    }
5556    function _useAllowance(address from, uint256 shares) internal {
57        if (msg.sender == from) {
58            return;
59        }
60        uint256 spenderAllowance = allowance[from][msg.sender];
61        // If allowance is infinite, don't decrease it to save on gas (breaks with EIP-20).
62        if (spenderAllowance != type(uint256).max) {
63            require(spenderAllowance >= shares, "Low allowance");
64            allowance[from][msg.sender] = spenderAllowance - shares; // Underflow is checked
65        }
66    }
6768    /// @notice Transfers `shares` tokens from `msg.sender` to `to`.
69    /// @param to The address to move the tokens.
70    /// @param shares of the tokens to move.
71    /// @return (bool) Returns True if succeeded.
72    function transfer(address to, uint256 shares) public returns (bool) {
73        _transfer(msg.sender, to, shares);
74        return true;
75    }
7677    /// @notice Transfers `shares` tokens from `from` to `to`. Caller needs approval for `from`.
78    /// @param from Address to draw tokens from.
79    /// @param to The address to move the tokens.
80    /// @param shares The token shares to move.
81    /// @return (bool) Returns True if succeeded.
82    function transferFrom(
83        address from,
84        address to,
85        uint256 shares
86    ) public returns (bool) {
87        _useAllowance(from, shares);
88        _transfer(from, to, shares);
89        return true;
90    }
9192    /// @notice Approves `amount` from sender to be spend by `spender`.
93    /// @param spender Address of the party that can draw from msg.sender's account.
94    /// @param amount The maximum collective amount that `spender` can draw.
95    /// @return (bool) Returns True if approved.
96    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) public override returns (bool) {
97        allowance[msg.sender][spender] = amount;
98        emit Approval(msg.sender, spender, amount);
99        return true;
100    }
101102    // solhint-disable-next-line func-name-mixedcase
103    function DOMAIN_SEPARATOR() external view returns (bytes32) {
104        return _domainSeparator();
105    }
106107    // keccak256("Permit(address owner,address spender,uint256 value,uint256 nonce,uint256 deadline)");
108    bytes32 private constant PERMIT_SIGNATURE_HASH = 0x6e71edae12b1b97f4d1f60370fef10105fa2faae0126114a169c64845d6126c9;
109110    /// @notice Approves `value` from `owner_` to be spend by `spender`.
111    /// @param owner_ Address of the owner.
112    /// @param spender The address of the spender that gets approved to draw from `owner_`.
113    /// @param value The maximum collective amount that `spender` can draw.
114    /// @param deadline This permit must be redeemed before this deadline (UTC timestamp in seconds).
115    function permit(
116        address owner_,
117        address spender,
118        uint256 value,
119        uint256 deadline,
120        uint8 v,
121        bytes32 r,
122        bytes32 s
123    ) external override {
124        require(owner_ != address(0), "Zero owner");
125        require(block.timestamp < deadline, "Expired");
126        require(
127            ecrecover(_getDigest(keccak256(abi.encode(PERMIT_SIGNATURE_HASH, owner_, spender, value, nonces[owner_]++, deadline))), v, r, s) ==
128                owner_,
129            "Invalid Sig"
130        );
131        allowance[owner_][spender] = value;
132        emit Approval(owner_, spender, value);
133    }
134135    // math is ok, because amount, totalSupply and shares is always 0 <= amount <= 100.000.000 * 10^18
136    // theoretically you can grow the amount/share ratio, but it's not practical and useless
137    function mint(uint256 amount) public returns (bool) {
138        require(msg.sender != address(0), "Zero address");
139        User memory user = users[msg.sender];
140141        uint256 totalTokens = token.balanceOf(address(this));
142        uint256 shares = totalSupply == 0 ? amount : (amount * totalSupply) / totalTokens;
143        user.balance += shares.to128();
144        user.lockedUntil = (block.timestamp + LOCK_TIME).to128();
145        users[msg.sender] = user;
146        totalSupply += shares;
147148        token.safeTransferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), amount);
149150        emit Transfer(address(0), msg.sender, shares);
151        return true;
152    }
153154    function _burn(
155        address from,
156        address to,
157        uint256 shares
158    ) internal {
159        require(to != address(0), "Zero address");
160        User memory user = users[from];
161        require(block.timestamp >= user.lockedUntil, "Locked");
162        uint256 amount = (shares * token.balanceOf(address(this))) / totalSupply;
163        users[from].balance = user.balance.sub(shares.to128()); // Must check underflow
164        totalSupply -= shares;
165166        token.safeTransfer(to, amount);
167168        emit Transfer(from, address(0), shares);
169    }
170171    function burn(address to, uint256 shares) public returns (bool) {
172        _burn(msg.sender, to, shares);
173        return true;
174    }
175176    function burnFrom(
177        address from,
178        address to,
179        uint256 shares
180    ) public returns (bool) {
181        _useAllowance(from, shares);
182        _burn(from, to, shares);
183        return true;

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
14
2910
415
554
1941
387

Comments to Code: 554 / 1941 =  29 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
13
2594
391
107
2096
61

Tests to Code: 2096 / 1941 = 108 %