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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Frax

81%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Frax

Final score:81%
Date:28 Feb 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:81%

PASS

Protocol Website:

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
Avalanche
BnB Smart Chain
Ethereum
Fantom
Moonriver
Polygon
Solana
Aurora
Harmony
Optimism
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
60%
10.100%
11.50%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
89%
16.90%
17.80%
59%
18.100%
19.0%
20.100%
21.0%
22.30%
23.100%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:81%

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.

Smart Contracts & Team

100%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 100%

They can be found at https://docs.frax.finance/smart-contracts/frax, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, 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. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 100%

Contract FRAX is extremely active.

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. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes
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 479 commits, it's clear Frax's development history is as moving as it is inspirational.

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)?

Answer: 100

Many team members are public and cross-reference their employment. This is documented in the Appendix.

Score Guidance:
100%
At least two names can be easily found in the protocol's website, documentation or medium. These are then confirmed by the personal websites of the individuals / their linkedin / twitter.
50%
At least one public name can be found to be working on the protocol.
0%
No public team members could be found.

Documentation

94%

The difference between this and the old link is solely the link.    This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

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

Answer: Yes

Location: https://docs.frax.finance/

7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in their documentation.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The documents identify software architecture and contract interaction through any of the following: diagrams, arrows, specific reference to software functions or a written explanation on how smart contracts interact.
No
Protocols receive a "no" if none of these are included.

8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is full coverage of deployed contracts in their 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. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 60%

There is no traceability, but strong association between software documentation and implemented code.

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

60%

10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)

Answer: 100%

With a Test to Code ratio of 719%, this protocol has clearly undergone an astonishing amount of testing. In all my time writing reviews, no other protocol has seen so much testing.

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

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 50%

No testing for code coverage was found, but this protocol has clearly undergone significant testing.

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 complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There are no scripts provided for protocol testing.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 0%

No report was found.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol has not undergone formal verification.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol has documented deployment to Ganache at https://docs.frax.finance/smart-contracts/miscellaneous.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Protocol has proved their tesnet usage by providing the addresses
No
Protocol has not proved their testnet usage by providing the addresses

Security

89%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 90%

Frax has been audited once, before launch. 3 major findings were not corrected.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and the audit findings are public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and audit findings are public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. The Audit report is public.
65%
Code is forked from an already audited protocol and a changelog is provided explaining why forked code was used and what changes were made. This changelog must justify why the changes made do not affect the audit.
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes are needed but not implemented.
30%
Audit(s) performed are low-quality and do not indicate proper due diligence.
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public OR smart contract address' not found.
Deduct 25% if the audited code is not available for comparison.

17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)

Answer: 80%

Frax offers up to $10m with a static bug bounty program. This is an incredible amount of money to offer to hackers and presents a strong incentive to secure Frax's code.

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 / the bug bounty program is dead
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.

Admin Controls

59%

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.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 100%

Admin control information was clearly documented at this location. This was quick to find.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Admin Controls are clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Admin Control docs are in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)

Answer: 0%

The relevant contracts are not identified.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Both the contract documentation and the smart contract code state that the code is not upgradeable or immutable.
80%
All Contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not)
50%
Code is immutable but not mentioned anywhere in the documentation
0%
Admin control information could not be found

20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)

Answer: 100%

Ownership is clearly indicated in this location.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 0%

Smart contract change capabilities are not identified.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change for all smart contracts
50%
The documentation covers the capabilities for change in some, but not all contracts
0%
The documentation does not cover the capabilities for change in any contract

22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)

Answer: 30%

This information is in software specific language.

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

23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol dose not have a pause control, and this is identified.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
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

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol's timelock documentation can be found at this location.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documentation identifies and explains why the protocol does not need a Timelock OR Timelock documentation identifies its duration, which contracts it applies to and justifies this time period.
60%
A Timelock is identified and its duration is specified
30%
A Timelock is identified
0%
No Timelock information was documented

25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)

Answer: 100%

The timelock is 48 hours.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Timelock is between 48 hours to 1 week OR justification as to why no Timelock is needed / is outside this length.
50%
Timelock is less than 48 hours or greater than 1 week.
0%
No Timelock information was documented OR no timelock length was identified.

Oracles

100%

This section goes over the documentation that a protocol may or may not supply about their Oracle usage. Oracles are a fundamental part of DeFi as they are responsible for relaying tons of price data information to thousands of protocols using blockchain technology. Not only are they important for price feeds, but they are also an essential component of transaction verification and security. This is explained in this document.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 100%

The protocol's oracle source is documented at this location. The contracts dependent are identified. There is relevant software function documentation.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If it uses one, the Oracle is specified. The contracts dependent on the oracle are identified. Basic software functions are identified (if the protocol provides its own price feed data). Timeframe of price feeds are identified. OR The reason as to why the protocol does not use an Oracle is identified and explained.
75%
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.
50%
Only the Oracle source is identified.
0%
No oracle is named / no oracle information is documented.

27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol documents front running mitigation techniques.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

This protocol documents flashloan countermeasures at this location.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

1// Reviewer(s) / Contributor(s)
2// Jason Huan: https://github.com/jasonhuan
3// Sam Kazemian: https://github.com/samkazemian
4// Dennis: github.com/denett
5// Hameed
6
7import "../Math/SafeMath.sol";
8import "./IFrax.sol";
9import "../FXS/IFxs.sol";
10import "../Frax/Pools/FraxPoolV3.sol";
11import "../Frax/Pools/IFraxPool.sol";
12import "../ERC20/ERC20.sol";
13import "../Staking/Owned.sol";
14import '../Uniswap/TransferHelper.sol';
15import '../Misc_AMOs/IAMO.sol';
16
17contract FraxAMOMinter is Owned {
18    // SafeMath automatically included in Solidity >= 8.0.0
19
20    /* ========== STATE VARIABLES ========== */
21
22    // Core
23    IFrax public FRAX = IFrax(0x853d955aCEf822Db058eb8505911ED77F175b99e);
24    IFxs public FXS = IFxs(0x3432B6A60D23Ca0dFCa7761B7ab56459D9C964D0);
25    ERC20 public collateral_token;
26    FraxPoolV3 public pool = FraxPoolV3(0x2fE065e6FFEf9ac95ab39E5042744d695F560729);
27    IFraxPool public old_pool = IFraxPool(0x1864Ca3d47AaB98Ee78D11fc9DCC5E7bADdA1c0d);
28    address public timelock_address;
29    address public custodian_address;
30
31    // Collateral related
32    address public collateral_address;
33    uint256 public col_idx;
34
35    // AMO addresses
36    address[] public amos_array;
37    mapping(address => bool) public amos; // Mapping is also used for faster verification
38
39    // Price constants
40    uint256 private constant PRICE_PRECISION = 1e6;
41
42    // Max amount of collateral the contract can borrow from the FraxPool
43    int256 public collat_borrow_cap = int256(10000000e6);
44
45    // Max amount of FRAX and FXS this contract can mint
46    int256 public frax_mint_cap = int256(100000000e18);
47    int256 public fxs_mint_cap = int256(100000000e18);
48
49    // Minimum collateral ratio needed for new FRAX minting
50    uint256 public min_cr = 810000;
51
52    // Frax mint balances
53    mapping(address => int256) public frax_mint_balances; // Amount of FRAX the contract minted, by AMO
54    int256 public frax_mint_sum = 0; // Across all AMOs
55
56    // Fxs mint balances
57    mapping(address => int256) public fxs_mint_balances; // Amount of FXS the contract minted, by AMO
58    int256 public fxs_mint_sum = 0; // Across all AMOs
59
60    // Collateral borrowed balances
61    mapping(address => int256) public collat_borrowed_balances; // Amount of collateral the contract borrowed, by AMO
62    int256 public collat_borrowed_sum = 0; // Across all AMOs
63
64    // FRAX balance related
65    uint256 public fraxDollarBalanceStored = 0;
66
67    // Collateral balance related
68    uint256 public missing_decimals;
69    uint256 public collatDollarBalanceStored = 0;
70
71    // AMO balance corrections
72    mapping(address => int256[2]) public correction_offsets_amos;
73    // [amo_address][0] = AMO's frax_val_e18
74    // [amo_address][1] = AMO's collat_val_e18
75
76    /* ========== CONSTRUCTOR ========== */
77    
78    constructor (
79        address _owner_address,
80        address _custodian_address,
81        address _timelock_address,
82        address _collateral_address,
83        address _pool_address
84    ) Owned(_owner_address) {
85        custodian_address = _custodian_address;
86        timelock_address = _timelock_address;
87
88        // Pool related
89        pool = FraxPoolV3(_pool_address);
90
91        // Collateral related
92        collateral_address = _collateral_address;
93        col_idx = pool.collateralAddrToIdx(_collateral_address);
94        collateral_token = ERC20(0xA0b86991c6218b36c1d19D4a2e9Eb0cE3606eB48);
95        missing_decimals = uint(18) - collateral_token.decimals();
96    }
97
98    /* ========== MODIFIERS ========== */
99
100    modifier onlyByOwnGov() {
101        require(msg.sender == timelock_address || msg.sender == owner, "Not owner or timelock");
102        _;
103    }
104
105    modifier validAMO(address amo_address) {
106        require(amos[amo_address], "Invalid AMO");
107        _;
108    }
109
110    /* ========== VIEWS ========== */
111
112    function collatDollarBalance() external view returns (uint256) {
113        (, uint256 collat_val_e18) = dollarBalances();
114        return collat_val_e18;
115    }
116
117    function dollarBalances() public view returns (uint256 frax_val_e18, uint256 collat_val_e18) {
118        frax_val_e18 = fraxDollarBalanceStored;
119        collat_val_e18 = collatDollarBalanceStored;
120    }
121
122    function allAMOAddresses() external view returns (address[] memory) {
123        return amos_array;
124    }
125
126    function allAMOsLength() external view returns (uint256) {
127        return amos_array.length;
128    }
129
130    function fraxTrackedGlobal() external view returns (int256) {
131        return int256(fraxDollarBalanceStored) - frax_mint_sum - (collat_borrowed_sum * int256(10 ** missing_decimals));
132    }
133
134    function fraxTrackedAMO(address amo_address) external view returns (int256) {
135        (uint256 frax_val_e18, ) = IAMO(amo_address).dollarBalances();
136        int256 frax_val_e18_corrected = int256(frax_val_e18) + correction_offsets_amos[amo_address][0];
137        return frax_val_e18_corrected - frax_mint_balances[amo_address] - ((collat_borrowed_balances[amo_address]) * int256(10 ** missing_decimals));
138    }
139
140    /* ========== PUBLIC FUNCTIONS ========== */
141
142    // Callable by anyone willing to pay the gas
143    function syncDollarBalances() public {
144        uint256 total_frax_value_d18 = 0;
145        uint256 total_collateral_value_d18 = 0; 
146        for (uint i = 0; i < amos_array.length; i++){ 
147            // Exclude null addresses
148            address amo_address = amos_array[i];
149            if (amo_address != address(0)){
150                (uint256 frax_val_e18, uint256 collat_val_e18) = IAMO(amo_address).dollarBalances();
151                total_frax_value_d18 += uint256(int256(frax_val_e18) + correction_offsets_amos[amo_address][0]);
152                total_collateral_value_d18 += uint256(int256(collat_val_e18) + correction_offsets_amos[amo_address][1]);
153            }
154        }
155        fraxDollarBalanceStored = total_frax_value_d18;
156        collatDollarBalanceStored = total_collateral_value_d18;
157    }
158
159    /* ========== OLD POOL / BACKWARDS COMPATIBILITY ========== */
160
161    function oldPoolRedeem(uint256 frax_amount) external onlyByOwnGov {
162        uint256 redemption_fee = old_pool.redemption_fee();
163        uint256 col_price_usd = old_pool.getCollateralPrice();
164        uint256 global_collateral_ratio = FRAX.global_collateral_ratio();
165        uint256 redeem_amount_E6 = ((frax_amount * (uint256(1e6) - redemption_fee)) / 1e6) / (10 ** missing_decimals);
166        uint256 expected_collat_amount = (redeem_amount_E6 * global_collateral_ratio) / 1e6;
167        expected_collat_amount = (expected_collat_amount * 1e6) / col_price_usd;
168
169        require((collat_borrowed_sum + int256(expected_collat_amount)) <= collat_borrow_cap, "Borrow cap");
170        collat_borrowed_sum += int256(expected_collat_amount);
171
172        // Mint the frax 
173        FRAX.pool_mint(address(this), frax_amount);
174
175        // Redeem the frax
176        FRAX.approve(address(old_pool), frax_amount);
177        old_pool.redeemFractionalFRAX(frax_amount, 0, 0);
178    }
179
180    function oldPoolCollectAndGive(address destination_amo) external onlyByOwnGov validAMO(destination_amo) {
181        // Get the amount to be collected
182        uint256 collat_amount = old_pool.redeemCollateralBalances(address(this));
183        
184        // Collect the redemption
185        old_pool.collectRedemption();
186
187        // Mark the destination amo's borrowed amount
188        collat_borrowed_balances[destination_amo] += int256(collat_amount);
189
190        // Give the collateral to the AMO
191        TransferHelper.safeTransfer(collateral_address, destination_amo, collat_amount);
192
193        // Sync
194        syncDollarBalances();
195    }
196
197    /* ========== OWNER / GOVERNANCE FUNCTIONS ONLY ========== */
198    // Only owner or timelock can call, to limit risk 
199
200    // ------------------------------------------------------------------
201    // ------------------------------ FRAX ------------------------------
202    // ------------------------------------------------------------------
203
204    // This contract is essentially marked as a 'pool' so it can call OnlyPools functions like pool_mint and pool_burn_from
205    // on the main FRAX contract
206    function mintFraxForAMO(address destination_amo, uint256 frax_amount) external onlyByOwnGov validAMO(destination_amo) {
207        int256 frax_amt_i256 = int256(frax_amount);
208
209        // Make sure you aren't minting more than the mint cap
210        require((frax_mint_sum + frax_amt_i256) <= frax_mint_cap, "Mint cap reached");
211        frax_mint_balances[destination_amo] += frax_amt_i256;
212        frax_mint_sum += frax_amt_i256;
213
214        // Make sure the FRAX minting wouldn't push the CR down too much
215        // This is also a sanity check for the int256 math
216        uint256 current_collateral_E18 = FRAX.globalCollateralValue();
217        uint256 cur_frax_supply = FRAX.totalSupply();
218        uint256 new_frax_supply = cur_frax_supply + frax_amount;
219        uint256 new_cr = (current_collateral_E18 * PRICE_PRECISION) / new_frax_supply;
220        require(new_cr >= min_cr, "CR would be too low");
221
222        // Mint the FRAX to the AMO
223        FRAX.pool_mint(destination_amo, frax_amount);
224
225        // Sync
226        syncDollarBalances();
227    }
228
229    function burnFraxFromAMO(uint256 frax_amount) external validAMO(msg.sender) {
230        int256 frax_amt_i256 = int256(frax_amount);
231
232        // Burn first
233        FRAX.pool_burn_from(msg.sender, frax_amount);
234
235        // Then update the balances
236        frax_mint_balances[msg.sender] -= frax_amt_i256;
237        frax_mint_sum -= frax_amt_i256;
238
239        // Sync
240        syncDollarBalances();
241    }
242
N/A