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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

dYdX

93%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

dYdX

Final score:93%
Date:20 Jun 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:93%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://dydx.exchange/

Hack History

Date:27 Nov 2021
Details: dYdX resolved an issue within their own freshly-deployed contract. $2m were at risk, but no funds were exploited due to good process. $500K USDC was paid out to the group disclosing the bug.
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
Ethereum
#QuestionAnswer
97%
1.100%
2.70%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
87%
10.100%
11.100%
12.Yes
13.70%
14.No
15.Yes
93%
16.100%
17.50%
89%
18.100%
19.80%
20.50%
21.100%
22.90%
23.80%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:93%

Very simply, the audit looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.

  • Here is my smart contract on the blockchain
  • You can see it matches a software repository used to develop the code
  • Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contract does
  • Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contract
  • Here are the audit(s) performed to review my code by third party experts

This report is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice of any kind, nor does it constitute an offer to provide investment advisory or other services. Nothing in this report shall be considered a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security, token, future, option or other financial instrument or to offer or provide any investment advice or service to any person in any jurisdiction. Nothing contained in this report constitutes investment advice or offers any opinion with respect to the suitability of any security, and the views expressed in this report should not be taken as advice to buy, sell or hold any security. The information in this report should not be relied upon for the purpose of investing. In preparing the information contained in this report, we have not taken into account the investment needs, objectives and financial circumstances of any particular investor. This information has no regard to the specific investment objectives, financial situation and particular needs of any specific recipient of this information and investments discussed may not be suitable for all investors.

Any views expressed in this report by us were prepared based upon the information available to us at the time such views were written. The views expressed within this report are limited to DeFiSafety and the author and do not reflect those of any additional or third party and are strictly based upon DeFiSafety, its authors, interpretations and evaluation of relevant data. Changed or additional information could cause such views to change. All information is subject to possible correction. Information may quickly become unreliable for various reasons, including changes in market conditions or economic circumstances.

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2021. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

97%

This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chain that gets reviewed and its corresponding software repository. The document explaining these questions is here.

1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)

Answer: 100%

dYdX's smart contract addresses can be found in their solo - migrations repository under deployed.json. A screenshot of the smart contract addresses can be found in the appendix below.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, documents or repository, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Addresses in mainnet.json, in discord or sub graph, etc
20%
Address found but labeling not clear or easy to find
0%
Executing addresses could not be found

2. How active is the primary contract? (%)

Answer: 70%

The protocol's SoloMargin.sol contract is active with more than 10 transactions a week, but not more than 10 transactions a day, which results in a 70% score. A screenshot of last months transactions 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

Their GitHub repository can be found here.

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%

dydx's solo repository has recorded 501 commits and 2 branches, earning them a 100%.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Any one of 100+ commits, 10+branches
70%
Any one of 70+ commits, 7+branches
50%
Any one of 50+ commits, 5+branches
30%
Any one of 30+ commits, 3+branches
0%
Less than 2 branches or less than 30 commits

5. Is the team public (not anonymous)?

Answer: 100

The team is public and can be found on their LinkedIn page.

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

dydx's README.md provides documentation on the protocol as well as their docs.dydx.exchange link.

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in their formal documentation through 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%

dydx's solo contracts repo provides the function of each smart contract. Documentation is also linked.

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%

The protocol explicitly links the smart contract functions to its representative source code, which rewards dydx with a 100%.

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

87%

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

Answer: 100%

dYdX has a strong TtC ratio of 222%, earning the protocol a 100% score. An appendix entry can be found on the testing factors.  

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%

dydx has 100% of line and branch coverage.

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/dydxprotocol/solo#test

Score Guidance:
Yes
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are available in the testing suite
No
Scripts and/or instructions to run tests are not available in the testing suite

13. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)

Answer: 70%

The protocol's GitHub code coverage report can be found here

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

dydx has not shown evidence of undergoing 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

Testnet documentation can be found here and the testnet used is Ropsten.

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%

dydx has 2 audits that were made pre-launch alongside additional Layer 2 audit. Pre-launch audits 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: 50%

dydx has 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

89%

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%

There is a clear Governance product (proposals and forums) for dydx as well as governance documentation related to how the protocol works out.

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%

All contracts are labelled as upgradeable in the Voting & Governance repository under governance parameters

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: 50%

Ownership is indicated as MultiSig in the 4_ownership.js files in the code.

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 the Voting & Governance repository.

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 information available on governance is not in software-specific language; the 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%

dydx has a function similar to Pause controls called Pauser/Unpauser role, which allows to pause updates to the merkle root through a timelock. There are however no further detail or testing done on the function.

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%

dydx documents their timelock parameters here.

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%

Different timelock durations are applied depending on the functions executed, ranging from 1 day to 21 days. A detailed table of the timelock parameters can be found here.

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%

dydx documents its oracles' smart contract addresses here and their respective functions as well as their source is documented here.

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

dydx documents front running mitigation in their documentation. In fact, they move to an entirely new network for it.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol cannot be front run and there is an explanation as to why OR documented front running countermeasures are implemented.
No
The Oracle documentation identifies both source and timeframe, but does not provide additional context regarding smart contracts.

28. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

While the Guardian role has functions related to "restrict[ing] open actions with borrowed funds", there are no clear flashloan attack mitigation techniques documented. In addition, flashloans are critical to the operation of dYdX so they would not seek to prevent flashloan usage by their userbase. As such, we will award points.

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    Copyright 2019 dYdX Trading Inc.
3    Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
4    you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
5    You may obtain a copy of the License at
6    http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
7    Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
8    distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
9    WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
10    See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
11    limitations under the License.
12*/
13
14pragma solidity 0.5.7;
15pragma experimental ABIEncoderV2;
16
17import { MultiSig } from "./MultiSig.sol";
18
19
20/**
21 * @title DelayedMultiSig
22 * @author dYdX
23 *
24 * Multi-Signature Wallet with delay in execution.
25 * Allows multiple parties to execute a transaction after a time lock has passed.
26 * Adapted from Amir Bandeali's MultiSigWalletWithTimeLock contract.
27 * Logic Changes:
28 *  - Only owners can execute transactions
29 *  - Require that each transaction succeeds
30 *  - Added function to execute multiple transactions within the same Ethereum transaction
31 */
32contract DelayedMultiSig is
33    MultiSig
34{
35    // ============ Events ============
36
37    event ConfirmationTimeSet(uint256 indexed transactionId, uint256 confirmationTime);
38    event TimeLockChange(uint32 secondsTimeLocked);
39
40    // ============ Storage ============
41
42    uint32 public secondsTimeLocked;
43    mapping (uint256 => uint256) public confirmationTimes;
44
45    // ============ Modifiers ============
46
47    modifier notFullyConfirmed(
48        uint256 transactionId
49    ) {
50        require(
51            !isConfirmed(transactionId),
52            "TX_FULLY_CONFIRMED"
53        );
54        _;
55    }
56
57    modifier fullyConfirmed(
58        uint256 transactionId
59    ) {
60        require(
61            isConfirmed(transactionId),
62            "TX_NOT_FULLY_CONFIRMED"
63        );
64        _;
65    }
66
67    modifier pastTimeLock(
68        uint256 transactionId
69    ) {
70        require(
71            block.timestamp >= confirmationTimes[transactionId] + secondsTimeLocked,
72            "TIME_LOCK_INCOMPLETE"
73        );
74        _;
75    }
76
77    // ============ Constructor ============
78
79    /**
80     * Contract constructor sets initial owners, required number of confirmations, and time lock.
81     *
82     * @param  _owners             List of initial owners.
83     * @param  _required           Number of required confirmations.
84     * @param  _secondsTimeLocked  Duration needed after a transaction is confirmed and before it
85     *                             becomes executable, in seconds.
86     */
87    constructor (
88        address[] memory _owners,
89        uint256 _required,
90        uint32 _secondsTimeLocked
91    )
92        public
93        MultiSig(_owners, _required)
94    {
95        secondsTimeLocked = _secondsTimeLocked;
96    }
97
98    // ============ Wallet-Only Functions ============
99
100    /**
101     * Changes the duration of the time lock for transactions.
102     *
103     * @param  _secondsTimeLocked  Duration needed after a transaction is confirmed and before it
104     *                             becomes executable, in seconds.
105     */
106    function changeTimeLock(
107        uint32 _secondsTimeLocked
108    )
109        public
110        onlyWallet
111    {
112        secondsTimeLocked = _secondsTimeLocked;
113        emit TimeLockChange(_secondsTimeLocked);
114    }
115
116    // ============ Admin Functions ============
117
118    /**
119     * Allows an owner to confirm a transaction.
120     * Overrides the function in MultiSig.
121     *
122     * @param  transactionId  Transaction ID.
123     */
124    function confirmTransaction(
125        uint256 transactionId
126    )
127        public
128        ownerExists(msg.sender)
129        transactionExists(transactionId)
130        notConfirmed(transactionId, msg.sender)
131        notFullyConfirmed(transactionId)
132    {
133        confirmations[transactionId][msg.sender] = true;
134        emit Confirmation(msg.sender, transactionId);
135        if (isConfirmed(transactionId)) {
136            setConfirmationTime(transactionId, block.timestamp);
137        }
138    }
139
140    /**
141     * Allows an owner to execute a confirmed transaction.
142     * Overrides the function in MultiSig.
143     *
144     * @param  transactionId  Transaction ID.
145     */
146    function executeTransaction(
147        uint256 transactionId
148    )
149        public
150        ownerExists(msg.sender)
151        notExecuted(transactionId)
152        fullyConfirmed(transactionId)
153        pastTimeLock(transactionId)
154    {
155        Transaction storage txn = transactions[transactionId];
156        txn.executed = true;
157        bool success = externalCall(
158            txn.destination,
159            txn.value,
160            txn.data.length,
161            txn.data
162        );
163        require(
164            success,
165            "TX_REVERTED"
166        );
167        emit Execution(transactionId);
168    }
169
170    /**
171     * Allows an owner to execute multiple confirmed transactions.
172     *
173     * @param  transactionIds  List of transaction IDs.
174     */
175    function executeMultipleTransactions(
176        uint256[] memory transactionIds
177    )
178        public
179        ownerExists(msg.sender)
180    {
181        for (uint256 i = 0; i < transactionIds.length; i++) {
182            executeTransaction(transactionIds[i]);
183        }
184    }
185
186    // ============ Helper Functions ============
187
188    /**
189     * Sets the time of when a submission first passed.
190     */
191    function setConfirmationTime(
192        uint256 transactionId,
193        uint256 confirmationTime
194    )
195        internal
196    {
197        confirmationTimes[transactionId] = confirmationTime;
198        emit ConfirmationTimeSet(transactionId, confirmationTime);
199    }
200}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Typescript + Javascript
78
23058
2275
822
19961
9008
905

Tests to Code: 19961 / 9008 = 222 %