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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Opyn V2

84%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Opyn V2

Final score:84%
Date:28 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Lena
PQR Score:84%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://www.opyn.co

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
Arbitrum
Avalanche
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
97%
1.100%
2.70%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
97%
10.100%
11.98%
12.Yes
13.70%
14.Yes
15.Yes
100%
16.100%
17.100%
51%
18.70%
19.0%
20.100%
21.50%
22.90%
23.80%
24.0%
25.0%
75%
26.75%
27.No
28.Yes
Total:84%

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%

Smart contract addresses can be found here, 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: 70%

Contract 0x7c06792af1632e77cb27a558dc0885338f4bdf8e is used 5 times a day, 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. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Opyn uses Github.

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%

Opyn has an adequate development history at 360 commits and 14 branches. Data found here.

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

The team is public. Where we found the team is documented in our team appendix at the end of this report.

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%

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://opyn.gitbook.io/opyn/

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented here.

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 adequate software documentation of all functions of the deployed code in their GitHub.

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%

Opyn lists and describes their important software functions, and provide implicit traceability. In order to obtain 100%, Opyn will have to provide direct links to their smart contracts' source code location in their GitHub in their respective emplacements within their documentation.

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

97%

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 1000% 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: 98%

Code is almost fully covered at 98.262%.

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/opynfinance/GammaProtocol#running-tests

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: 70%

Opyn's code coverage can be found from their GitHub at https://github.com/opynfinance/GammaProtocol#gamma-protocol--.

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: Yes

Opyn has 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

Opyn has been deployed to a testnet.

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

100%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

Multiple audits have been performed and documented before and after deployment. Findings are public and multiple fixes were deployed.

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: 100%

Opyn offers two bug bounties: up to $1m for Squeeth, and up to $900k for Gamma.

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

51%

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: 70%

Admin Controls are clearly labelled here. This took some looking.  

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%

Opyn's admin control information clearly mentions upgradeability of smart contracts. However, the extent thereof is vaguely described as "modules" and does not explicitly detail which particular smart contracts are upgradeable or not.

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 types are identified for each contract in these control flow diagrams.

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: 50%

The documentation covers the capabilities for change for some smart contracts, but not all of them.

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 very easy to understand and in non-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: 80%

Opyn's partial and full pause control is documented and explained in this location. There is no evidence of testing but capabilities are partially described.

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: 0%

No Timelock information was documented.

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: 0%

No Timelock information was documented.

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

75%

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: 75%

Opyn's oracle source is fully documented at this location. The contracts dependent are all identified. There is relevant software function documentation. However, there is lack of detail regarding the feeds' timeframes/refresh rates of data.

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: No

Opyn does not mention front running or does not document any countermeasure against it.

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

Opyn's documentation describes the mitigation of flash mint exploits here.    - "Collateralization is checked at the end of all of these operations/actions and if the collateralization is not correct, it is as if the prior actions/operations never happened and the transaction reverts."

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: UNLICENSED */
2pragma solidity =0.6.10;
3
4import {ERC20Upgradeable} from "../packages/oz/upgradeability/ERC20Upgradeable.sol";
5import {ERC20PermitUpgradeable} from "../packages/oz/upgradeability/erc20-permit/ERC20PermitUpgradeable.sol";
6import {Strings} from "../packages/oz/Strings.sol";
7import {BokkyPooBahsDateTimeLibrary} from "../packages/BokkyPooBahsDateTimeLibrary.sol";
8import {AddressBookInterface} from "../interfaces/AddressBookInterface.sol";
9
10/**
11 * @title Otoken
12 * @author Opyn Team
13 * @notice Otoken is the ERC20 token for an option
14 * @dev The Otoken inherits ERC20Upgradeable because we need to use the init instead of constructor
15 */
16contract Otoken is ERC20PermitUpgradeable {
17    /// @notice address of the Controller module
18    address public controller;
19
20    /// @notice asset that the option references
21    address public underlyingAsset;
22
23    /// @notice asset that the strike price is denominated in
24    address public strikeAsset;
25
26    /// @notice asset that is held as collateral against short/written options
27    address public collateralAsset;
28
29    /// @notice strike price with decimals = 8
30    uint256 public strikePrice;
31
32    /// @notice expiration timestamp of the option, represented as a unix timestamp
33    uint256 public expiryTimestamp;
34
35    /// @notice True if a put option, False if a call option
36    bool public isPut;
37
38    uint256 private constant STRIKE_PRICE_SCALE = 1e8;
39    uint256 private constant STRIKE_PRICE_DIGITS = 8;
40
41    /**
42     * @notice initialize the oToken
43     * @param _addressBook addressbook module
44     * @param _underlyingAsset asset that the option references
45     * @param _strikeAsset asset that the strike price is denominated in
46     * @param _collateralAsset asset that is held as collateral against short/written options
47     * @param _strikePrice strike price with decimals = 8
48     * @param _expiryTimestamp expiration timestamp of the option, represented as a unix timestamp
49     * @param _isPut True if a put option, False if a call option
50     */
51    function init(
52        address _addressBook,
53        address _underlyingAsset,
54        address _strikeAsset,
55        address _collateralAsset,
56        uint256 _strikePrice,
57        uint256 _expiryTimestamp,
58        bool _isPut
59    ) external initializer {
60        controller = AddressBookInterface(_addressBook).getController();
61        underlyingAsset = _underlyingAsset;
62        strikeAsset = _strikeAsset;
63        collateralAsset = _collateralAsset;
64        strikePrice = _strikePrice;
65        expiryTimestamp = _expiryTimestamp;
66        isPut = _isPut;
67        (string memory tokenName, string memory tokenSymbol) = _getNameAndSymbol();
68        __ERC20_init_unchained(tokenName, tokenSymbol);
69        __ERC20Permit_init(tokenName);
70        _setupDecimals(8);
71    }
72
73    function getOtokenDetails()
74        external
75        view
76        returns (
77            address,
78            address,
79            address,
80            uint256,
81            uint256,
82            bool
83        )
84    {
85        return (collateralAsset, underlyingAsset, strikeAsset, strikePrice, expiryTimestamp, isPut);
86    }
87
88    /**
89     * @notice mint oToken for an account
90     * @dev Controller only method where access control is taken care of by _beforeTokenTransfer hook
91     * @param account account to mint token to
92     * @param amount amount to mint
93     */
94    function mintOtoken(address account, uint256 amount) external {
95        require(msg.sender == controller, "Otoken: Only Controller can mint Otokens");
96        _mint(account, amount);
97    }
98
99    /**
100     * @notice burn oToken from an account.
101     * @dev Controller only method where access control is taken care of by _beforeTokenTransfer hook
102     * @param account account to burn token from
103     * @param amount amount to burn
104     */
105    function burnOtoken(address account, uint256 amount) external {
106        require(msg.sender == controller, "Otoken: Only Controller can burn Otokens");
107        _burn(account, amount);
108    }
109
110    /**
111     * @notice generates the name and symbol for an option
112     * @dev this function uses a named return variable to avoid the stack-too-deep error
113     * @return tokenName (ex: ETHUSDC 05-September-2020 200 Put USDC Collateral)
114     * @return tokenSymbol (ex: oETHUSDC-05SEP20-200P)
115     */
116    function _getNameAndSymbol() internal view returns (string memory tokenName, string memory tokenSymbol) {
117        string memory underlying = ERC20Upgradeable(underlyingAsset).symbol();
118        string memory strike = ERC20Upgradeable(strikeAsset).symbol();
119        string memory collateral = ERC20Upgradeable(collateralAsset).symbol();
120        string memory displayStrikePrice = _getDisplayedStrikePrice(strikePrice);
121
122        // convert expiry to a readable string
123        (uint256 year, uint256 month, uint256 day) = BokkyPooBahsDateTimeLibrary.timestampToDate(expiryTimestamp);
124
125        // get option type string
126        (string memory typeSymbol, string memory typeFull) = _getOptionType(isPut);
127
128        //get option month string
129        (string memory monthSymbol, string memory monthFull) = _getMonth(month);
130
131        // concatenated name string: ETHUSDC 05-September-2020 200 Put USDC Collateral
132        tokenName = string(
133            abi.encodePacked(
134                underlying,
135                strike,
136                " ",
137                _uintTo2Chars(day),
N/A