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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Loopring

82%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Loopring

Final score:82%
Date:15 Sep 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:82%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://loopring.org/#/

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
zkRollup
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
70%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
89%
16.100%
17.20%
69%
18.70%
19.80%
20.100%
21.100%
22.90%
23.80%
24.0%
25.0%
75%
26.50%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:82%

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%

Loopring stores their smart contract addresses in their smart contract page, found on the home page of the protocol. Supporting documentation can be found 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%

Loopring's ExchangeV3 contract has way over 10 transactions a day, earning them a score of 100%. A screenshot of the etherscan contract 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

Loopring displays their software repository publicly 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%

The protocols repository, as an instance of Loopring's development history, has a total of 3450 commits and 36 branches, showing a meticulous maintenance of their code. They definitely keep their code in the loop(ring).

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 Loopring team and 9 employees are publicly displayed on their LinkedIn site. A screenshot of their LinkedIn page 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

The protocol's whitepaper is available as a pdf using this link.

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

Answer: Yes

Loopring showcases their software architecture as a framework design on their Github and also use written explanations in their documentation.

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%

Loopring covers all of its contracts and functions here and here.

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 clear association between the code in the repos and the documentation, but the association is non explicit as there are no links between the two that would redirect to the source 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

70%

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 491% 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: 50%

Although no code coverage test was found for Loopring V3, they have a very rigorous testing suite. As such, 50% will be awarded.

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

The protocol does provide its scripts for testing 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: 0%

There are no test reports in Loopring's repositories.

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

Loopring has not undergone any 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

The protocol has deployed its tests on testnets, evidence on Kovan can be seen 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

89%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

Loopring protocol has multiple audits performed before deployment. Their audit list can be found here.

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: 20%

Loopring's Medium post dislcoses a maximum bug bounty of 50 000 LRC. At the time of writing this report, LRC is at 0.43 cents, totalling a reward of 21,500$ of static bug bounty reward.

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

69%

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%

Loopring discloses risks related to the usage of their platform on their loopring.io platform page. The admin access controls are clearly stated there but the protocol scores a 70 as this information 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: 80%

The relevant contracts are identified as upgradeable by a Super Administrator here as well as in the codes such as 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%

Loopring's ownership is clearly indicated as a MultiSig admin right here.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
The type of ownership is clearly indicated in their documentation. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
50%
The type of ownership is indicated, but only in the code. (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / etc)
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

21. Are the protocol's smart contract change capabilities described? (%)

Answer: 100%

Loopring's smart contract change capabilities are clearly indicated on their risk disclosure page.

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%

The admin control information is written in plain english and is easy to understand. You can consult the risk disclosures here.

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%

Named as a "Withdrawal Mode", Loopring has a function disabling all functionalities of the exchange, which can be found here. This function somewhat operates as a pause control function for the AMM. Their last recorded test was made 9 months ago prior to the writing of this review, which earns Loopring a score of 80%.

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%

Loopring has no Timelock documentation readily available in their repository or 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%

As there is no Timelock documentation, Loopring scores a 0.

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%

There are no proper Oracle documentation in the Github nor the Loopring documentation, but a Medium article provides the source of the protocol's oracle being Chainlink.

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

Frontrunning is addressed in Loopring's Github repository; Withdrawal mode and conditional transactions are functions used to mitigate frontrunning by controlling new block submissions.

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

Flashloan attacks are also addressed in Loopring's Github repository; Withdrawal mode and conditional transactions can mitigate flashloan attacks by controlling transaction submissions.

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: Apache-2.0
2// Copyright 2017 Loopring Technology Limited.
3pragma solidity ^0.7.0;
4pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
5
6import "../aux/access/ITransactionReceiver.sol";
7import "../core/iface/IAgentRegistry.sol";
8import "../lib/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
9import "../lib/TransferUtil.sol";
10import "./libamm/AmmAssetManagement.sol";
11import "./libamm/AmmData.sol";
12import "./libamm/AmmExitRequest.sol";
13import "./libamm/AmmJoinRequest.sol";
14import "./libamm/AmmPoolToken.sol";
15import "./libamm/AmmStatus.sol";
16import "./libamm/AmmTransactionReceiver.sol";
17import "./libamm/AmmWithdrawal.sol";
18import "./PoolToken.sol";
19
20
21/// @title LoopringAmmPool
22contract LoopringAmmPool is
23    PoolToken,
24    IAgent,
25    ITransactionReceiver,
26    ReentrancyGuard
27{
28    using AmmAssetManagement     for AmmData.State;
29    using AmmJoinRequest         for AmmData.State;
30    using AmmExitRequest         for AmmData.State;
31    using AmmPoolToken           for AmmData.State;
32    using AmmStatus              for AmmData.State;
33    using AmmTransactionReceiver for AmmData.State;
34    using AmmWithdrawal          for AmmData.State;
35    using TransferUtil           for address;
36
37    event PoolJoinRequested(AmmData.PoolJoin join);
38    event PoolExitRequested(AmmData.PoolExit exit, bool force);
39    event ForcedExitProcessed(address owner, uint96 burnAmount, uint96[] amounts);
40    event Shutdown(uint timestamp);
41
42    IAmmController public immutable controller;
43    IAssetManager  public immutable assetManager;
44    bool           public immutable joinsDisabled;
45
46    modifier onlyFromExchangeOwner()
47    {
48        require(msg.sender == state.exchangeOwner, "UNAUTHORIZED");
49        _;
50    }
51
52    modifier onlyFromAssetManager()
53    {
54        require(msg.sender == address(assetManager), "UNAUTHORIZED");
55        _;
56    }
57
58    modifier onlyFromController()
59    {
60        require(msg.sender == address(controller), "UNAUTHORIZED");
61        _;
62    }
63
64    modifier onlyWhenOnline()
65    {
66        require(state.isOnline(), "NOT_ONLINE");
67        _;
68    }
69
70    modifier onlyWhenOffline()
71    {
72        require(!state.isOnline(), "NOT_OFFLINE");
73        _;
74    }
75
76    constructor(
77        IAmmController _controller,
78        IAssetManager  _assetManager,
79        bool           _joinsDisabled
80    )
81    {
82        require(_controller != IAmmController(0), "ZERO_ADDRESS");
83        controller = _controller;
84        assetManager = _assetManager;
85        joinsDisabled = _joinsDisabled;
86    }
87
88    function isOnline()
89        public
90        view
91        returns (bool)
92    {
93        return state.isOnline();
94    }
95
96    receive() payable external {}
97
98    function setupPool(AmmData.PoolConfig calldata config)
99        external
100        nonReentrant
101    {
102        require(state.accountID == 0 || msg.sender == address(controller), "UNAUTHORIZED");
103        state.setupPool(config);
104    }
105
106    function enterExitMode(bool enabled)
107        external
108        onlyFromController
109    {
110        require(state.exitMode != enabled, "INVALID_STATE");
111        state.exitMode = enabled;
112    }
113
114    // Anyone is able to shut down the pool when requests aren't being processed any more.
115    function shutdown(address exitOwner)
116        external
117        payable
118        onlyWhenOnline
119        nonReentrant
120    {
121        state.shutdownByLP(exitOwner);
122    }
123
124    function shutdownByController()
125        external
126        onlyWhenOnline
127        nonReentrant
128        onlyFromController
129    {
130        state.shutdownByController();
131    }
132
133    function joinPool(
134        uint96[]     calldata joinAmounts,
135        uint96                mintMinAmount,
136        uint96                fee
137        )
138        external
139        payable
140        onlyWhenOnline
141        nonReentrant
142    {
143        state.joinPool(joinAmounts, mintMinAmount, fee);
144    }
145
146    function exitPool(
147        uint96            burnAmount,
148        uint96[] calldata exitMinAmounts
149        )
150        external
151        payable
152        onlyWhenOnline
153        nonReentrant
154    {
155        state.exitPool(burnAmount, exitMinAmounts, false);
156    }
157
158    function forceExitPool(
159        uint96            burnAmount,
160        uint96[] calldata exitMinAmounts
161        )
162        external
163        payable
164        onlyWhenOnline
165        nonReentrant
166    {
167        state.exitPool(burnAmount, exitMinAmounts, true);
168    }
169
170    function onReceiveTransactions(
171        bytes              calldata txsData,
172        bytes              calldata callbackData
173        )
174        external
175        override
176        onlyWhenOnline
177        onlyFromExchangeOwner
178        // nonReentrant     // Not needed, does not do any external calls
179                            // and can only be called by the exchange owner.
180    {
181        AmmData.Settings memory settings = AmmData.Settings({
182            controller: controller,
183            assetManager: assetManager,
184            joinsDisabled: joinsDisabled
185        });
186        state.onReceiveTransactions(txsData, callbackData, settings);
187    }

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
TypeScript
39
20233
2231
1082
16920
3447
298

Tests to Code: 16920 / 3447 = 491 %