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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Akropolis

76%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Akropolis

Final score:76%
Date:20 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:76%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://www.akropolis.io

Hack History

Date:20 Nov 2020
Details: $2M DAI was taken with a flashloan attack.
Reference Linklink

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
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
87%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.59%
10.60%
57%
11.80%
12.50%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.0%
16.100%
90%
17.100%
18.20%
26%
19.0%
20.60%
21.30%
22.0%
Total:76%

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 in the README.md of the Delphi GitHub repository at https://github.com/akropolisio/delphi, 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 over 10 transactions a day, including internal, on contract AdminUpgradeabilityProxy.sol (Staking Contract), 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%

This protocol has a rich development history, with some 515 commits and 68 separate branches.

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

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

87%

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: Yes

This whitepaper details the basic software functions.

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

Answer: 100%

The software documentation is impressive and covers all deployed contracts.

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: 59%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 59% 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: 60%

Akropolis' code is clearly outlined in the docs and can be non explicitly traced in their github repository for each of their individual projects.

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

57%

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

Answer: 80%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 93% 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%

Documented code coverage could not be found, but there is clear evidence of robust testing in the TtC score.

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 test report was 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: 100%

Akropolis has been deployed in full on the Rinkeby testnet.

Security

90%

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

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

Answer: 100%

​Certik published two Akropolis Sparta audit reports before the mainnet launch.    MixBytes published a Delphi staking audit report after mainnnet launch. MythX did too.

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: 20%

​The bounty program offered by Akropolis has a maximum reward of $40,000.

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

26%

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: 0%

Governance information was found at https://wiki.akropolis.io/sparta/#akro-governance, however there are no details explicitly detailing what the admins have control over.

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: 60%
  • a) Smart contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable through the voting process.  - b) Defined roles (Borrower, and LP) are outlined.  

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%

Governance information is written in a technical way that does not communicate to users about how/why their funds are safe.

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%

There is no pause control documentation.

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.

1pragma solidity ^0.5.12;
23import "../common/Base.sol";
4import "../interfaces/core/CoreInterface.sol";
5import "../utils/AddressMap.sol";
67contract Pool is Base, CoreInterface {
89    /* Short description */
10    string  public name;
11    string  public description;
12    address public founder;
1314    /* Modules map */
15    AddressMap.Data modules;
1617    using AddressList for AddressList.Data;
18    using AddressMap for AddressMap.Data;
1920    /* Module constant mapping */
21    mapping(bytes32 => bool) public is_constant;
2223    /**
24     * @dev Contract ABI storage
25     *      the contract interface contains source URI
26     */
27    mapping(address => string) public abiOf;
28    
29    function initialize() public initializer {
30        Base.initialize();
31        founder = _msgSender();
32    }
3334    function setMetadata(string memory _name, string  memory _description) public onlyOwner {
35        name = _name;
36        description = _description;
37    }
38      
39    /**
40     * @dev Set new module for given name
41     * @param _name infrastructure node name
42     * @param _module infrastructure node address
43     * @param _constant have a `true` value when you create permanent name of module
44     */
45    function set(string memory _name, address _module, bool _constant) public onlyOwner {
46        
47        require(!isConstant(_name), "Pool: module address can not be replaced");
4849        // Notify
50        if (modules.get(_name) != ZERO_ADDRESS)
51            emit ModuleReplaced(_name, modules.get(_name), _module);
52        else
53            emit ModuleAdded(_name, _module);
54 
55        // Set module in the map
56        modules.set(_name, _module);
5758        // Register constant flag 
59        is_constant[keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_name))] = _constant;
60    }
6162     /**
63     * @dev Remove module by name
64     * @param _name module name
65     */
66    function remove(string memory _name)  public onlyOwner {
67        require(!isConstant(_name), "Pool: module can not be removed");
6869        // Notify
70        emit ModuleRemoved(_name, modules.get(_name));
7172        // Remove module
73        modules.remove(_name);
74    }
7576    /**
77     * @dev Fast module exist check
78     * @param _module is a module address
79     * @return `true` wnen core contains module
80     */
81    function contains(address _module) public view returns (bool)
82    {
83        return modules.items.contains(_module);
84    }
8586    /**
87     * @dev Modules counter
88     * @return count of modules in core
89     */
90    function size() public view returns (uint)
91    {
92        return modules.size();
93    }
9495    /**
96     * @dev Check for module have permanent name
97     * @param _name is a module name
98     * @return `true` when module have permanent name
99     */
100    function isConstant(string memory _name) public view returns (bool)
101    {
102        return is_constant[keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_name))];
103    }
104105    /**
106     * @dev Get module by name
107     * @param _name is module name
108     * @return module address
109     */
110    function get(string memory _name) public view returns (address)
111    {
112        return modules.get(_name);
113    }
114115    /*
116     * @dev Get module name by address
117     * @param _module is a module address
118     * @return module name
119     */
120    function getName(address _module) public view returns (string memory)
121    {
122        return modules.keyOf[_module];
123    }
124125    /*
126     * @dev Get first module
127     * @return first address
128     */
129    function first() public view returns (address)
130    {
131        return modules.items.head;
132    }
133134    /**
135     * @dev Get next module
136     * @param _current is an current address
137     * @return next address
138     */
139    function next(address _current) public view returns (address)
140    {
141        return modules.items.next(_current);
142    }
143144}

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
12
41
420
846
1441
181

Comments to Code: 846 / 1441 =  59 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
5
1552
167
38
1347
5

Tests to Code: 1347 / 1441 = 93 %