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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Ampleforth

86%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Ampleforth

Final score:86%
Date:26 Jul 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nic of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:86%

PASS

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
66%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.50%
9.60%
10.40%
80%
11.100%
12.99%
13.Yes
14.0%
15.100%
16.100%
96%
17.100%
18.70%
77%
19.100%
20.90%
21.90%
22.40%
Total:86%

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://github.com/ampleforth/uFragments, 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 on contract AdminUpgradeabilityProxy.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: 100%

With 252 commits and 12 branches, this is a very healthy software 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).

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

66%

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

Ampleforth covers their basic software functions at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-NmSnQ6E7wY1nyouuf-GuDdJWNCnJWl/view.

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

Answer: 50%

Ampleforth covers the most major of their software functions at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I-NmSnQ6E7wY1nyouuf-GuDdJWNCnJWl/view. In addition, the code commenting connects the software with the white paper. However neither are actually software documentation. Therefore a 50% score is given.

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: 60%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 62% 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: 40%

There is a lack of traceability in the Ampleforth technical documentation as no functions are listed in the whitepaper. Commenting is quite good though so 40% and fills the need sfor docs a bit. Therefore 40%.

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

80%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 472% 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: 99%

Ampleforth has a 96% codecov for their uFragments repository, 100% codecov for their oracle repository, and 100% codecov for their ampl-balancer repository. (96%+100%+100%)/3 = 99%

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

Scrips/Instructions location: Scripts can be found here, and instructions here.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

All codecov reports in the Ampleforth GitHub are private and have their access denied to users.

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: 100%

Ampleforth has had a Certik Formal Verification test done here.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

Evidence of Ampleforth's test-net smart contract usage can be found here.

Security

96%

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%

Ampleforth has had multiple audits pre and post-deployment of their multiple smart contracts. The full list of audit reports can be found here, and include reports from QuantStamp, Certik, Slowmist and Trail of Bits.

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%

Ampleforth has a Bug Bounty program with Immunefi that is live and rewards participating users with up to $100K in rewards.

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

77%

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: 100%

Ampleforth's community governance section can easily be found in their documentation here.

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: 90%
  • Ampleforth clearly outlines the immutability of the governance contract and the upgradeability of the policy contracts.  - The defined voting roles are clearly outline in governance documentation.  - The scope of available upgrade propositions are all outline in [governance documentation.](https://medium.com/ampleforth/state-of-discretion-and-governance-in-ampleforth-492963d84545

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: 90%

All descriptions pertaining governance information in the Ampleforth documentation are all detailed in user-friendly 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: 40%

According to the Ampleforth roadmap and GitHub commits, the pause function was removed in 2020.

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/**
2 * @title Orchestrator
3 * @notice The orchestrator is the main entry point for rebase operations. It coordinates the policy
4 * actions with external consumers.
5 */
6contract Orchestrator is Ownable {
7    struct Transaction {
8        bool enabled;
9        address destination;
10        bytes data;
11    }
1213    // Stable ordering is not guaranteed.
14    Transaction[] public transactions;
1516    UFragmentsPolicy public policy;
1718    /**
19     * @param policy_ Address of the UFragments policy.
20     */
21    constructor(address policy_) public {
22        Ownable.initialize(msg.sender);
23        policy = UFragmentsPolicy(policy_);
24    }
2526    /**
27     * @notice Main entry point to initiate a rebase operation.
28     *         The Orchestrator calls rebase on the policy and notifies downstream applications.
29     *         Contracts are guarded from calling, to avoid flash loan attacks on liquidity
30     *         providers.
31     *         If a transaction in the transaction list fails, Orchestrator will stop execution
32     *         and revert to prevent a gas underprice attack.
33     */
34    function rebase() external {
35        require(msg.sender == tx.origin); // solhint-disable-line avoid-tx-origin
3637        policy.rebase();
3839        for (uint256 i = 0; i < transactions.length; i++) {
40            Transaction storage t = transactions[i];
41            if (t.enabled) {
42                (bool result, ) = t.destination.call(t.data);
43                if (!result) {
44                    revert("Transaction Failed");
45                }
46            }
47        }
48    }
4950    /**
51     * @notice Adds a transaction that gets called for a downstream receiver of rebases
52     * @param destination Address of contract destination
53     * @param data Transaction data payload
54     */
55    function addTransaction(address destination, bytes memory data) external onlyOwner {
56        transactions.push(Transaction({enabled: true, destination: destination, data: data}));
57    }
5859    /**
60     * @param index Index of transaction to remove.
61     *              Transaction ordering may have changed since adding.
62     */
63    function removeTransaction(uint256 index) external onlyOwner {
64        require(index < transactions.length, "index out of bounds");
6566        if (index < transactions.length - 1) {
67            transactions[index] = transactions[transactions.length - 1];
68        }
6970        transactions.pop();
71    }
7273    /*
74     * @param index Index of transaction. Transaction ordering may have changed since adding.
75     * @param enabled True for enabled, false for disabled.
76     */
77    function setTransactionEnabled(uint256 index, bool enabled) external onlyOwner {
78        require(index < transactions.length, "index must be in range of stored tx list");
79        transactions[index].enabled = enabled;
80    }
8182    /*
83     * @return Number of transactions, both enabled and disabled, in transactions list.
84     */
85    function transactionsSize() external view returns (uint256) {
86        return transactions.length;
87    }
88}

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
17
3332
507
1078
1747
177

Comments to Code: 1078 / 1747 =  62 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
16
5815
616
76
5123
15
TypeScript
12
3607
406
72
3129
19
Total
28
9422
1022
148
8252
34

Tests to Code: 8252 / 1747 = 472 %