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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Goldfinch

93%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Goldfinch

Final score:93%
Date:05 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:93%

PASS

Protocol Website:goldfinch.finance

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
97%
1.100%
2.70%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
80%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
90%
16.90%
17.90%
95%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.90%
23.80%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:93%

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

97%

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%

Contract addresses can be quickly found in Goldfinch's developer documentation.

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: 70%

Some relevant contracts were located via etherscan. A Goldfinch-specific NFT contract relating to identity receives more than 10 transactions per week.

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

Location: https://github.com/goldfinch-eng

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 an astonishing 3458 commits, this repository is one of the most well maintained testaments to developer history we've ever seen - it is truly golden.

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 contributors to Goldfinch are public and they cross-confirm their commitment to the protocol on personal social media.

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

100%

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.goldfinch.finance/goldfinch/

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

Answer: Yes

Goldfinch's software architecture is detailed at https://github.com/goldfinch-eng/mono/blob/main/ARCHITECTURE.md.

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%

Goldfinch details each contract function in their 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: 100%

Goldfinch lists each contract's source code location (GitHub) next to each contract's documentation. This is perfect traceability.

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%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 329% 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 reviewer's 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

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

Answer: 50%

This protocol does not detail code coverage testing. There is nonetheless evidence of robust testing undertaken on this protocol.

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: Yes

Scripts/Instructions location: https://github.com/goldfinch-eng/mono

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: 100%

Multiple test reports are documented in their Monorepository's CLI.

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

Goldfinch has documented deployment to two testnets.

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

90%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 90%

This protocol has undergone multiple audits, though it is unclear when the protocol launched. While the token launch is documented, the lending borrowing aspect is of an undocumented time origin. It is that each iteration is being audited nonetheless with V1, V2 and V2.2s all receiving separate audits.

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: 90%

This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $500K

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

95%

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 easily and quickly found at https://docs.goldfinch.finance/goldfinch/governance.

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: 100%

Goldfinch's contracts are clearly identified in this location. Each contract that is either upgradeable or fixed is well explained for users to identify.

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%

Goldfinch's smart contract ownership is adequately detailed as being a 6-of-10 MultiSig here.

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: 100%

Change capabilities are clearly identified in each contract's software function documentation. This could be explained in plainer language, but the information is all present.

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: 90%

Admin Control information is largely easy to understand.

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: 80%

The ability for the DAO to pause smart contracts is detailed at https://docs.goldfinch.finance/goldfinch/governance. In addition, there is a good pausability section in their documentation that details which circumstances it should be triggered under. There is no mention on tests.

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%

Goldfinch does not use a timelock, and this is explained in their documentation. This is justified on the grounds that their multisig is sufficiently stringent.

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%

Timelocks are not used by Goldfinch, and this is explained in their documentation.

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. These questions are explained in this document.

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

Answer: 100%

Goldfinch does not use oracles. This is explained in their documentation here. Instead, their protocol relies on specific non-transferable UID tokens based on identity requirements.

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

Front-running is considered in their documentation. Due to the permissioned nature of the protocol, front running is mitigated. This is an impressive breakdown of how this might be countered. Users should feel like this protocol has done a significant amount of security researching - we've never seen this attack vector so carefully considered.

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

Goldfinch is not vulnerable to flashloan attack. This is because they are mitigated by Goldfinch's design (i.e. a 0.5% withdrawal fee). The team should be commended for an incredibly in-depth explanation as to how these attacks might occur and why Goldfinch is prepared to counter them. This is a sign of great processes and intelligent security analysis.

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// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
2
3pragma solidity 0.6.12;
4pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
5
6import "@openzeppelin/contracts-ethereum-package/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
7
8import "./BaseUpgradeablePausable.sol";
9import "./ConfigHelper.sol";
10import "../../interfaces/IGo.sol";
11import "../../interfaces/IUniqueIdentity0612.sol";
12
13contract Go is IGo, BaseUpgradeablePausable {
14  address public override uniqueIdentity;
15
16  using SafeMath for uint256;
17
18  GoldfinchConfig public config;
19  using ConfigHelper for GoldfinchConfig;
20
21  GoldfinchConfig public legacyGoList;
22  uint256[11] public allIdTypes;
23  event GoldfinchConfigUpdated(address indexed who, address configAddress);
24
25  function initialize(
26    address owner,
27    GoldfinchConfig _config,
28    address _uniqueIdentity
29  ) public initializer {
30    require(
31      owner != address(0) && address(_config) != address(0) && _uniqueIdentity != address(0),
32      "Owner and config and UniqueIdentity addresses cannot be empty"
33    );
34    __BaseUpgradeablePausable__init(owner);
35    _performUpgrade();
36    config = _config;
37    uniqueIdentity = _uniqueIdentity;
38  }
39
40  function updateGoldfinchConfig() external override onlyAdmin {
41    config = GoldfinchConfig(config.configAddress());
42    emit GoldfinchConfigUpdated(msg.sender, address(config));
43  }
44
45  function performUpgrade() external onlyAdmin {
46    return _performUpgrade();
47  }
48
49  function _performUpgrade() internal {
50    allIdTypes[0] = ID_TYPE_0;
51    allIdTypes[1] = ID_TYPE_1;
52    allIdTypes[2] = ID_TYPE_2;
53    allIdTypes[3] = ID_TYPE_3;
54    allIdTypes[4] = ID_TYPE_4;
55    allIdTypes[5] = ID_TYPE_5;
56    allIdTypes[6] = ID_TYPE_6;
57    allIdTypes[7] = ID_TYPE_7;
58    allIdTypes[8] = ID_TYPE_8;
59    allIdTypes[9] = ID_TYPE_9;
60    allIdTypes[10] = ID_TYPE_10;
61  }
62
63  /**
64   * @notice sets the config that will be used as the source of truth for the go
65   * list instead of the config currently associated. To use the associated config for to list, set the override
66   * to the null address.
67   */
68  function setLegacyGoList(GoldfinchConfig _legacyGoList) external onlyAdmin {
69    legacyGoList = _legacyGoList;
70  }
71
72  /**
73   * @notice Returns whether the provided account is go-listed for use of the Goldfinch protocol
74   * for any of the UID token types.
75   * This status is defined as: whether `balanceOf(account, id)` on the UniqueIdentity
76   * contract is non-zero (where `id` is a supported token id on UniqueIdentity), falling back to the
77   * account's status on the legacy go-list maintained on GoldfinchConfig.
78   * @param account The account whose go status to obtain
79   * @return The account's go status
80   */
81  function go(address account) public view override returns (bool) {
82    require(account != address(0), "Zero address is not go-listed");
83
84    if (_getLegacyGoList().goList(account) || IUniqueIdentity0612(uniqueIdentity).balanceOf(account, ID_TYPE_0) > 0) {
85      return true;
86    }
87
88    // start loop at index 1 because we checked index 0 above
89    for (uint256 i = 1; i < allIdTypes.length; ++i) {
90      uint256 idTypeBalance = IUniqueIdentity0612(uniqueIdentity).balanceOf(account, allIdTypes[i]);
91      if (idTypeBalance > 0) {
92        return true;
93      }
94    }
95    return false;
96  }
97
98  /**
99   * @notice Returns whether the provided account is go-listed for use of the Goldfinch protocol
100   * for defined UID token types
101   * @param account The account whose go status to obtain
102   * @param onlyIdTypes Array of id types to check balances
103   * @return The account's go status
104   */
105  function goOnlyIdTypes(address account, uint256[] memory onlyIdTypes) public view override returns (bool) {
106    require(account != address(0), "Zero address is not go-listed");
107    GoldfinchConfig goListSource = _getLegacyGoList();
108    for (uint256 i = 0; i < onlyIdTypes.length; ++i) {
109      if (onlyIdTypes[i] == ID_TYPE_0 && goListSource.goList(account)) {
110        return true;
111      }
112      uint256 idTypeBalance = IUniqueIdentity0612(uniqueIdentity).balanceOf(account, onlyIdTypes[i]);
113      if (idTypeBalance > 0) {
114        return true;
115      }
116    }
117    return false;
118  }
119
120  /**
121   * @notice Returns whether the provided account is go-listed for use of the SeniorPool on the Goldfinch protocol.
122   * @param account The account whose go status to obtain
123   * @return The account's go status
124   */
125  function goSeniorPool(address account) public view override returns (bool) {
126    require(account != address(0), "Zero address is not go-listed");
127    if (account == config.stakingRewardsAddress() || _getLegacyGoList().goList(account)) {
128      return true;
129    }
130    uint256[2] memory seniorPoolIdTypes = [ID_TYPE_0, ID_TYPE_1];
131    for (uint256 i = 0; i < seniorPoolIdTypes.length; ++i) {
132      uint256 idTypeBalance = IUniqueIdentity0612(uniqueIdentity).balanceOf(account, seniorPoolIdTypes[i]);
133      if (idTypeBalance > 0) {
134        return true;
135      }
136    }
137    return false;
138  }
139
140  function _getLegacyGoList() internal view returns (GoldfinchConfig) {
141    return address(legacyGoList) == address(0) ? config : legacyGoList;
142  }
143}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
22
5002
684
893
11278
3425
299

Tests to Code: 11278 / 3425 = 329 %