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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Quickswap

80%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Quickswap

Final score:80%
Date:18 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:80%

PASS

About the protocol

Quickswap has made a significant improvement since our last review of them. They have spent time updating their documentation and explaining that there is no change between the code they forked (Uni-V2) and their own. Therefore, their documentation / oracle score is high. Indeed, their team was extremely responsive when any requests for comment / suggestions to improve were made. They score highly on admin controls because their protocol is fully non-custodial and completely immutable. Quickswap should be commended for their efforts.    We'd like Quickswap to improve the documentation relating to testing. This will assist users in understanding what their protocol has done and therefore increase the familiarity with development processes / strengthen the code.    Nonetheless, this is a strong increase in process quality.

Security Incidents

Date:24 Oct 2022
Details: Quickswap Lend exploited by 200K via flashloan from a price manipulation on a Curve pool. Penalty 30% as this was preventable, foreseeable and no funds reimbursed to date.
Reference Linklink

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
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
42%
10.40%
11.30%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
62%
16.65%
17.40%
100%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.100%
24.100%
25.100%
88%
26.100
27.No
28.Yes
Total:80%

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 2023. 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.quickswap.exchange/reference/smart-contracts/01-factory, 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 Router is used a staggering 40,000 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

Location: https://github.com/QuickSwap

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 290+ commits, there is good development history.

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

Public team members confirmed via their own socials that they were working on Quickswap.

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.quickswap.exchange/#/swap

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

Answer: Yes

Quickswap's software architecture is documented in full.

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 Quickswap's deployed contracts by 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: 100%

There is perfect traceability between software documentation and implemented code. The Quickswap docs link to the exact Uniswap contract the code is forked from.

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

42%

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

Answer: 40%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 32% 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: 30%

There is no testing code coverage documented by Quickswap in their repository.

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/QuickSwap/quickswap-core#run-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: 0%

No test report is documented.

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

Quickswap has documented deployment to a testnet in their GitHub repository. Users can verify the contracts deployed using a linked block explorer.

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

62%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 65%

The contracts that Quickswap forked (Uniswap V2) are audited. Quickswap is a line for line copy of the Uniswap contracts, as stated here. As such, we will award points for this.

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: 40%

Quickswap offers a bug bounty of $50k. It is a static bug bounty.

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

100%

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 is listed in the readme.md file of the GitHub repository.

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%

All relevant contracts are identified as immutable: Quickswap is fully immutable. This is important as it means that no admin rights are granted and that users retain full control over their funds.

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 the hands of the contract itself. No admin roles / ownership / multisigs are entitled to any role in any Quickswap contract.

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%

Smart contract change capabilities are identified in all contracts - there is no way for the Quickswap team to change the contracts in any way. The contracts own themselves and are fully immutable.

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: 100%

This information is 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: 100%

Quickswap's contracts are fully immutable, meaning that there is no way to pause this contract. This is stated in their readme.md.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
If immutable and no changes possible
100%
If admin control is fully via governance
80%
Robust transaction signing process (7 or more elements)
70%
Adequate transaction signing process (5 or more elements)
60%
Weak transaction signing process (3 or more elements)
0%
No transaction signing process evident
Evidence of audits of signers following the process add 20%

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

Since Quickswap's contracts are fully immutable, there is no way to implement changes. This means that there is no need to implement or document a timelock because there is no way to modify the contracts.

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%

Quickswap does not use a timelock because it is immutable.

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

88%

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

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

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

Quickswap documents no 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

Since Quickswap uses Uniswap's TWAP oracle, it inherits its flashloan manipulation resistant structure. This is documented in Quickswap documentation.

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/**
2 *Submitted for verification at Etherscan.io on 2020-09-16
3*/
4
5/**
6 *Submitted for verification at Etherscan.io on 2020-09-15
7*/
8
9pragma solidity ^0.5.16;
10pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
11
12// From https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/math/Math.sol
13// Subject to the MIT license.
14
15/**
16 * @dev Wrappers over Solidity's arithmetic operations with added overflow
17 * checks.
18 *
19 * Arithmetic operations in Solidity wrap on overflow. This can easily result
20 * in bugs, because programmers usually assume that an overflow raises an
21 * error, which is the standard behavior in high level programming languages.
22 * `SafeMath` restores this intuition by reverting the transaction when an
23 * operation overflows.
24 *
25 * Using this library instead of the unchecked operations eliminates an entire
26 * class of bugs, so it's recommended to use it always.
27 */
28library SafeMath {
29    /**
30     * @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, reverting on overflow.
31     *
32     * Counterpart to Solidity's `+` operator.
33     *
34     * Requirements:
35     * - Addition cannot overflow.
36     */
37    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
38        uint256 c = a + b;
39        require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
40
41        return c;
42    }
43
44    /**
45     * @dev Returns the addition of two unsigned integers, reverting with custom message on overflow.
46     *
47     * Counterpart to Solidity's `+` operator.
48     *
49     * Requirements:
50     * - Addition cannot overflow.
51     */
52    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
53        uint256 c = a + b;
54        require(c >= a, errorMessage);
55
56        return c;
57    }
58
59    /**
60     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting on underflow (when the result is negative).
61     *
62     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
63     *
64     * Requirements:
65     * - Subtraction cannot underflow.
66     */
67    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
68        return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction underflow");
69    }
70
71    /**
72     * @dev Returns the subtraction of two unsigned integers, reverting with custom message on underflow (when the result is negative).
73     *
74     * Counterpart to Solidity's `-` operator.
75     *
76     * Requirements:
77     * - Subtraction cannot underflow.
78     */
79    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
80        require(b <= a, errorMessage);
81        uint256 c = a - b;
82
83        return c;
84    }
85
86    /**
87     * @dev Returns the multiplication of two unsigned integers, reverting on overflow.
88     *
89     * Counterpart to Solidity's `*` operator.
90     *
91     * Requirements:
92     * - Multiplication cannot overflow.
93     */
94    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
95        // Gas optimization: this is cheaper than requiring 'a' not being zero, but the
96        // benefit is lost if 'b' is also tested.
97        // See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/522
98        if (a == 0) {
99            return 0;
100        }
101
102        uint256 c = a * b;
103        require(c / a == b, "SafeMath: multiplication overflow");
104
105        return c;
106    }
107
108    /**
109     * @dev Returns the multiplication of two unsigned integers, reverting on overflow.
110     *
111     * Counterpart to Solidity's `*` operator.
112     *
113     * Requirements:
114     * - Multiplication cannot overflow.
115     */
116    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
117        // Gas optimization: this is cheaper than requiring 'a' not being zero, but the
118        // benefit is lost if 'b' is also tested.
119        // See: https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/522
120        if (a == 0) {
121            return 0;
122        }
123
124        uint256 c = a * b;
125        require(c / a == b, errorMessage);
126
127        return c;
128    }
129
130    /**
131     * @dev Returns the integer division of two unsigned integers.
132     * Reverts on division by zero. The result is rounded towards zero.
133     *
134     * Counterpart to Solidity's `/` operator. Note: this function uses a
135     * `revert` opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity
136     * uses an invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
137     *
138     * Requirements:
139     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
140     */
141    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
142        return div(a, b, "SafeMath: division by zero");
143    }
144
145    /**
146     * @dev Returns the integer division of two unsigned integers.
147     * Reverts with custom message on division by zero. The result is rounded towards zero.
148     *
149     * Counterpart to Solidity's `/` operator. Note: this function uses a
150     * `revert` opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity
151     * uses an invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
152     *
153     * Requirements:
154     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
155     */
156    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
157        // Solidity only automatically asserts when dividing by 0
158        require(b > 0, errorMessage);
159        uint256 c = a / b;
160        // assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn't hold
161
162        return c;
163    }
164
165    /**
166     * @dev Returns the remainder of dividing two unsigned integers. (unsigned integer modulo),
167     * Reverts when dividing by zero.
168     *
169     * Counterpart to Solidity's `%` operator. This function uses a `revert`
170     * opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity uses an
171     * invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
172     *
173     * Requirements:
174     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
175     */
176    function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
177        return mod(a, b, "SafeMath: modulo by zero");
178    }
179
180    /**
181     * @dev Returns the remainder of dividing two unsigned integers. (unsigned integer modulo),
182     * Reverts with custom message when dividing by zero.
183     *
184     * Counterpart to Solidity's `%` operator. This function uses a `revert`
185     * opcode (which leaves remaining gas untouched) while Solidity uses an
186     * invalid opcode to revert (consuming all remaining gas).
187     *
188     * Requirements:
189     * - The divisor cannot be zero.
190     */
191    function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
192        require(b != 0, errorMessage);
193        return a % b;
194    }
195}
196
197contract Quick {
198    /// @notice EIP-20 token name for this token
199    string public constant name = "Quickswap";
200
201    /// @notice EIP-20 token symbol for this token
202    string public constant symbol = "QUICK";
203
204    /// @notice EIP-20 token decimals for this token
205    uint8 public constant decimals = 18;
206
207    /// @notice Total number of tokens in circulation
208    uint public totalSupply = 0; // QUICK
209
210    /// @notice Allowance amounts on behalf of others
211    mapping (address => mapping (address => uint96)) internal allowances;
212
213    /// @notice Official record of token balances for each account
214    mapping (address => uint96) internal balances;
215
216    /// @notice A record of each accounts delegate
217    mapping (address => address) public delegates;
218
219    /// @notice A checkpoint for marking number of votes from a given block
220    struct Checkpoint {
221        uint32 fromBlock;
222        uint96 votes;
223    }
224

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
9
3564
553
1287
546
1732
213

Tests to Code: 546 / 1732 = 32 %