If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
FAIL
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.
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.
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.
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? (%)
Tulip's smart contract addresses can be found here.
2. How active is the primary contract? (%)
Contract Lending Program is seeing more than 10 transactions a day.
3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Although Tulip has a public software repository, it is filled with forks and their own SDK. They seem to keep their own smart contracts under a private repo, therefore we will not be awarding any points for this question.
4. Is there a development history visible? (%)
Since Tulip's main smart contract repository is publicly unavailable, we cannot evaluate its development history.
5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Tulip's team is not public.
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)
Location: https://tulip-protocol.gitbook.io/tulip-protocol/
7. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (Y/N)
Tulip's software architecture is documented in https://tulip-protocol.gitbook.io/tulip-protocol/tulip-autovaults/vault-strategy#tulip-autovaults.
8. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
Tulip does not provide any individual coverage of its smart contract functions within their documentation.
9. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
Due to there being a complete lack of software functions within the Tulip documentation, there cannot be any traceability to its source code.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
As Tulip's software is close-sourced, we do not have access to the required test suite needed for the evaluation of this question. This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
Tulip does not have any public code coverage report available.
12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)
Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/sol-farm/tulipv2-sdk-examples/tree/main/scripts (SDK)
13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
No public test report of Tulip exists.
14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
Tulip has not undergone formal verification.
15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)
Tulip's testnet/devnet addresses were not found.
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
Tulip is unaudited.
17. Is the bounty value acceptably high (%)
Tulip does not offer an official Bug Bounty program.
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?
Tulip's Admin Control information can easily be found in their documentation.
19. Are relevant contracts clearly labelled as upgradeable or immutable? (%)
All of Tulip's listed smart contracts are upgradeable through the BPFLoader.
20. Is the type of smart contract ownership clearly indicated? (%)
Tulip mentions the existence of their MultiSig here.
21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)
Tulip clearly describes that all functions, variables, etc. in their smart contracts are upgradeable.
22. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to understand? (%)
This information is in user-friendly language.
23. Is there sufficient Pause Control documentation? (%)
Tulip does not document the existence of a pause control or similar functions.
24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)
Tulip does not have a timelock.
25. Is the Timelock of an adequate length? (Y/N)
Tulip does not have a timelock.
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? (%)
Tulip details their use of Chainlink oracles at https://medium.com/tulipprotocol/tulip-protocol-integrating-chainlink-price-feeds-on-solana-to-help-secure-leveraged-yield-farming-52f39c940600.
27. Is front running mitigated by this protocol? (Y/N)
Tulip mitigates front running possibilities via its Chainlink oracle implementation.
28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Tulip is flash loan resistant due to its Chainlink oracle implementation..
1Enter appendix example code here