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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Alchemix

80%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Alchemix

Final score:80%
Date:06 Jun 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:80%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://alchemix.fi/

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
74%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.70%
5.0
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
50%
10.100%
11.50%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.No
90%
16.90%
17.90%
90%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.90%
23.40%
24.100%
25.100%
75%
26.50%
27.Yes
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 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

74%

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://alchemix-finance.gitbook.io/v2/verifieddeployments, 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 Alchemist is used on average 10 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
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: 70%

With 26 commits and 7 branches on their v2-contracts repository, Alchemix's GitHub repository does offer a visible development history. As per our guideline, there is room for improvements by either increasing the number of branches or the number of commits. For this reason, Alchemix is attributed a score of 70%.

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: 0

Although the cofounder has a Twitter profile and mentions Alchemix, the team uses an online persona.

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

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

Answer: Yes

Alchemix documents its software architecture through written descriptions which can be found 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 100% coverage of 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: 60%

There is implicit traceability 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

50%

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 161% 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%

Test for coverage was not found but clearly there is a robust testing suite.

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

No scripts or instructions to run tests were found inside of the Alchemix Github repo.

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%

There is no evidence of detailed test reports in the Alchemix GitHub.

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

Alchemix 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: No

Alchemix does not document any testnet deployments.

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%

CertiK has performed an audit on Alchemix post-launch and the report can be found here.    Runtime Verification has performed an audit prior to Alchemix's V2 launch, the report can be found here.    Most of the fix recommendations were implemented by the Alchemix team.

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%

Alchemix has 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

90%

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 clearly documented in this location. This is very easy 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: 100%

The relevant contracts (i.e. all) contracts in Alchemix are clearly labelled as upgradeable.

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 of Alchemix's contracts is very clearly indicated by their documentation. There are three separate privileged roles with different capacities. In addition, the Alchemix DAO has a say over upgrades.

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%

This capacities for change are clearly identified in their documentation.

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%

This information is straightforward and simple 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: 40%

Alchemix identifies a pause control and explains under which conditions it is triggered.

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%

Alchemix documents a timelock, and this is easy to find. This length is justified and the applicable contracts are identified (i.e. all).

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%

Alchemix chooses a 24 hour timelock, and justifies this choice based on the need to update contracts fast thanks to the evolving nature of DeFi.

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: 50%

Alchemix identifies Chainlink as their principal oracle source. However, no timeframes or specific smart contracts are identified as using this oracle 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: Yes

Alchemix mitigates the extent of front running by limiting mint amounts per block. This information can be found here.  

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

Alchemix mitigates the extent of flashloan attacks by limiting mint amounts per block as well as setting a flash mint fee. This information can be found here and here.

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

null
1contract Alchemist is  ReentrancyGuard {
2  using CDP for CDP.Data;
3  using FixedPointMath for FixedPointMath.FixedDecimal;
4  using Vault for Vault.Data;
5  using Vault for Vault.List;
6  using SafeERC20 for IMintableERC20;
7  using SafeMath for uint256;
8  using Address for address;
9
10  address public constant ZERO_ADDRESS = address(0);
11
12  /// @dev Resolution for all fixed point numeric parameters which represent percents. The resolution allows for a
13  /// granularity of 0.01% increments.
14  uint256 public constant PERCENT_RESOLUTION = 10000;
15
16  /// @dev The minimum value that the collateralization limit can be set to by the governance. This is a safety rail
17  /// to prevent the collateralization from being set to a value which breaks the system.
18  ///
19  /// This value is equal to 100%.
20  ///
21  /// IMPORTANT: This constant is a raw FixedPointMath.FixedDecimal value and assumes a resolution of 64 bits. If the
22  ///            resolution for the FixedPointMath library changes this constant must change as well.
23  uint256 public constant MINIMUM_COLLATERALIZATION_LIMIT = 1000000000000000000;
24
25  /// @dev The maximum value that the collateralization limit can be set to by the governance. This is a safety rail
26  /// to prevent the collateralization from being set to a value which breaks the system.
27  ///
28  /// This value is equal to 400%.
29  ///
30  /// IMPORTANT: This constant is a raw FixedPointMath.FixedDecimal value and assumes a resolution of 64 bits. If the
31  ///            resolution for the FixedPointMath library changes this constant must change as well.
32  uint256 public constant MAXIMUM_COLLATERALIZATION_LIMIT = 4000000000000000000;
33
34  event GovernanceUpdated(
35    address governance
36  );
37
38  event PendingGovernanceUpdated(
39    address pendingGovernance
40  );
41
42  event SentinelUpdated(
43    address sentinel
44  );
45
46  event TransmuterUpdated(
47    address transmuter
48  );
49
50  event RewardsUpdated(
51    address treasury
52  );
53
54  event HarvestFeeUpdated(
55    uint256 fee
56  );
57
58  event CollateralizationLimitUpdated(
59    uint256 limit
60  );
61
62  event EmergencyExitUpdated(
63    bool status
64  );
65
66  event ActiveVaultUpdated(
67    IVaultAdapter indexed adapter
68  );
69
70  event FundsHarvested(
71    uint256 withdrawnAmount,
72    uint256 decreasedValue
73  );
74
75  event FundsRecalled(
76    uint256 indexed vaultId,
77    uint256 withdrawnAmount,
78    uint256 decreasedValue
79  );
80
81  event FundsFlushed(
82    uint256 amount
83  );
84
85  event TokensDeposited(
86    address indexed account,
87    uint256 amount
88  );
89
90  event TokensWithdrawn(
91    address indexed account,
92    uint256 requestedAmount,
93    uint256 withdrawnAmount,
94    uint256 decreasedValue
95  );
96
97  event TokensRepaid(
98    address indexed account,
99    uint256 parentAmount,
100    uint256 childAmount
101  );

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
TypeScript
7
5618
859
91
4668
2904
299

Tests to Code: 4668 / 2904 = 161 %