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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Maple Finance

91%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Maple Finance

Final score:91%
Date:06 Jul 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:91%

PASS

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
Solana
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
90%
10.100%
11.100%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
93%
16.100%
17.50%
77%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.80%
24.0%
25.0%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:91%

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

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%

Maple's smart contracts can be found on their GitHub, specifically here.

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%

Primary contracts such as Maple's LP token contract are used on average 15 times a day. Supporting document can be found 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

Maple's public software repository can be found on their 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%

At 745 commits and 3 branches, Maple documents its development history outstandingly.

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

Maple has linked many members' names and personal websites on their team page. Supporting documents can be found in the appendix.

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

Maple's documentation can be found on their GitHub page: https://github.com/maple-labs/maple-core/wiki/Background.  

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

Answer: Yes

Maple documents its protocol's software architecture through relationship diagrams and written explanations.

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%

Maple covers 100% of their contracts and functions documentations by cross-referencing their documentation and their GitHub repository.

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%

Maple clearly associates its code and documents via non explicit traceability as no links can be found leading to the source code of the protocol.

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

90%

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 278% 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 judgment 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: 100%

The protocol documents the test coverage here. Because of the extensive documentation, this is considered full coverage as each contract and module is covered.

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

Maple provides scrips and instructions to run their tests here.

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%

There is reports of Maple's test result in the Actions tab of its repositories. For instance, the loan repository test result displays testing results.

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

Maple has not undergone formal verification over their algorithms and testing.

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

Maple has deployed its smart contracts through Rinkeby and the addresses can be found here.

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

93%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

Maple has undergone 3 audits before mainnet launch and reports are available on their README documentation.

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: 50%

Maple offers an active bug bounty of 50,000$, found on Immunefi

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

77%

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%

Maple's governance is documented in their gitbook Security page, but it takes a bit of 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: 100%

Maple's relevant contracts are clearly identified as immutable. The immutability of their proxy contracts is shown here.

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 their Security github page.

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 clearly identified in their Github Security page. Smart contracts are 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%

Maple clearly indicates smart contract immutability, thus showing that admin control 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: 80%

Maple documents its pause controls but no evidence of regular tests is shown. Maple does mention that their pause control will be revoked once the latest deployment is deemed safe.

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%

Maple has no timelock documentation in their documentation.

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%

There is no timelock documentation on Maple's protocol.

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%

Maple's oracles are documented in their gitbook under the Oracles section. The contracts for the oracles can be cross-referenced with the developer documentation and the relevant functions are documented.

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

Maple Finance describes how they mitigate front-running in their loan repository.

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

This protocol documents flash loan attack mitigation techniques by setting a transaction fee of a percentage of the loan 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

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: AGPL-3.0-or-later
2pragma solidity 0.6.11;
3
4import "lib/openzeppelin-contracts/contracts/math/SafeMath.sol";
5import "lib/openzeppelin-contracts/contracts/token/ERC20/SafeERC20.sol";
6
7import "./interfaces/ILoan.sol";
8
9/// @title DebtLocker holds custody of LoanFDT tokens.
10contract DebtLocker {
11
12    using SafeMath  for uint256;
13    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
14
15    uint256 constant WAD = 10 ** 18;
16
17    ILoan   public immutable loan;            // The Loan contract this locker is holding tokens for.
18    IERC20  public immutable liquidityAsset;  // The Liquidity Asset this locker can claim.
19    address public immutable pool;            // The owner of this Locker (the Pool).
20
21    uint256 public lastPrincipalPaid;    // Loan total principal   paid at last time claim() was called.
22    uint256 public lastInterestPaid;     // Loan total interest    paid at last time claim() was called.
23    uint256 public lastFeePaid;          // Loan total fees        paid at last time claim() was called.
24    uint256 public lastExcessReturned;   // Loan total excess  returned at last time claim() was called.
25    uint256 public lastDefaultSuffered;  // Loan total default suffered at last time claim() was called.
26    uint256 public lastAmountRecovered;  // Liquidity Asset (a.k.a. loan asset) recovered from liquidation of Loan collateral.
27
28    /**
29        @dev Checks that `msg.sender` is the Pool.
30    */
31    modifier isPool() {
32        require(msg.sender == pool, "DL:NOT_P");
33        _;
34    }
35
36    constructor(address _loan, address _pool) public {
37        loan           = ILoan(_loan);
38        pool           = _pool;
39        liquidityAsset = IERC20(ILoan(_loan).liquidityAsset());
40    }
41
42    // Note: If newAmt > 0, totalNewAmt will always be greater than zero.
43    function _calcAllotment(uint256 newAmt, uint256 totalClaim, uint256 totalNewAmt) internal pure returns (uint256) {
44        return newAmt == uint256(0) ? uint256(0) : newAmt.mul(totalClaim).div(totalNewAmt);
45    }
46
47    /**
48        @dev    Claims funds distribution for Loan via LoanFDT. Only the Pool can call this function.
49        @return [0] = Total Claimed
50                [1] = Interest Claimed
51                [2] = Principal Claimed
52                [3] = Pool Delegate Fee Claimed
53                [4] = Excess Returned Claimed
54                [5] = Amount Recovered (from Liquidation)
55                [6] = Default Suffered
56    */
57    function claim() external isPool returns (uint256[7] memory) {
58
59        uint256 newDefaultSuffered   = uint256(0);
60        uint256 loan_defaultSuffered = loan.defaultSuffered();
61
62        // If a default has occurred, update storage variable and update memory variable from zero for return.
63        // `newDefaultSuffered` represents the proportional loss that the DebtLocker registers based on its balance
64        // of LoanFDTs in comparison to the total supply of LoanFDTs.
65        // Default will occur only once, so below statement will only be `true` once.
66        if (lastDefaultSuffered == uint256(0) && loan_defaultSuffered > uint256(0)) {
67            newDefaultSuffered = lastDefaultSuffered = _calcAllotment(loan.balanceOf(address(this)), loan_defaultSuffered, loan.totalSupply());
68        }
69
70        // Account for any transfers into Loan that have occurred since last call.
71        loan.updateFundsReceived();
72
73        // Handles case where no claimable funds are present but a default must be registered (zero-collateralized loans defaulting).
74        if (loan.withdrawableFundsOf(address(this)) == uint256(0)) return([0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, newDefaultSuffered]);
75
76        // If there are claimable funds, calculate portions and claim using LoanFDT.
77        
78        // Calculate payment deltas.
79        uint256 newInterest  = loan.interestPaid() - lastInterestPaid;    // `loan.interestPaid`  updated in `loan._makePayment()`
80        uint256 newPrincipal = loan.principalPaid() - lastPrincipalPaid;  // `loan.principalPaid` updated in `loan._makePayment()`
81
82        // Update storage variables for next delta calculation.
83        lastInterestPaid  = loan.interestPaid();
84        lastPrincipalPaid = loan.principalPaid();
85
86        // Calculate one-time deltas if storage variables have not yet been updated.
87        uint256 newFee             = lastFeePaid         == uint256(0) ? loan.feePaid()         : uint256(0);  // `loan.feePaid`          updated in `loan.drawdown()`
88        uint256 newExcess          = lastExcessReturned  == uint256(0) ? loan.excessReturned()  : uint256(0);  // `loan.excessReturned`   updated in `loan.unwind()` OR `loan.drawdown()` if `amt < fundingLockerBal`
89        uint256 newAmountRecovered = lastAmountRecovered == uint256(0) ? loan.amountRecovered() : uint256(0);  // `loan.amountRecovered`  updated in `loan.triggerDefault()`
90
91        // Update DebtLocker storage variables if Loan storage variables has been updated since last claim.
92        if (newFee > 0)             lastFeePaid         = newFee;
93        if (newExcess > 0)          lastExcessReturned  = newExcess;
94        if (newAmountRecovered > 0) lastAmountRecovered = newAmountRecovered;
95
96        // Withdraw all claimable funds via LoanFDT.
97        uint256 beforeBal = liquidityAsset.balanceOf(address(this));                 // Current balance of DebtLocker (accounts for direct inflows).
98        loan.withdrawFunds();                                                        // Transfer funds from Loan to DebtLocker.
99        uint256 claimBal  = liquidityAsset.balanceOf(address(this)).sub(beforeBal);  // Amount claimed from Loan using LoanFDT.
100
101        // Calculate sum of all deltas, to be used to calculate portions for metadata.
102        uint256 sum = newInterest.add(newPrincipal).add(newFee).add(newExcess).add(newAmountRecovered);
103
104        // Calculate payment portions based on LoanFDT claim.
105        newInterest  = _calcAllotment(newInterest,  claimBal, sum);
106        newPrincipal = _calcAllotment(newPrincipal, claimBal, sum);
107
108        // Calculate one-time portions based on LoanFDT claim.
109        newFee             = _calcAllotment(newFee,             claimBal, sum);
110        newExcess          = _calcAllotment(newExcess,          claimBal, sum);
111        newAmountRecovered = _calcAllotment(newAmountRecovered, claimBal, sum);
112
113        liquidityAsset.safeTransfer(pool, claimBal);  // Transfer entire amount claimed using LoanFDT.
114
115        // Return claim amount plus all relevant metadata, to be used by Pool for further claim logic.
116        // Note: newInterest + newPrincipal + newFee + newExcess + newAmountRecovered = claimBal - dust
117        //       The dust on the right side of the equation gathers in the pool after transfers are made.
118        return([claimBal, newInterest, newPrincipal, newFee, newExcess, newAmountRecovered, newDefaultSuffered]);
119    }
120
121    /**
122        @dev Liquidates a Loan that is held by this contract. Only the Pool can call this function.
123    */
124    function triggerDefault() external isPool {
125        loan.triggerDefault();
126    }
127
128}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
37
8160
1765
848
5547
1993
147

Tests to Code: 5547 / 1993 = 278 %