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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Yield Yak

47%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Yield Yak

Final score:47%
Date:19 Jul 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Ryoma
PQR Score:47%

FAIL

Protocol Website:yieldyak.com

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
Avalanche
#QuestionAnswer
36%
1.20%
2.40%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.0
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
52%
10.40%
11.30%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
20%
16.20%
17.20%
76%
18.100%
19.50%
20.75%
21.100%
22.100%
23.0%
24.60%
25.100%
13%
26.0
27.Yes
28.No
Total:47%

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

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

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

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

This completed report is copyright (c) DeFiSafety 2023. Permission is given to copy in whole, retaining this copyright label.

Smart Contracts & Team

36%

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: 20%

Smart contract addresses for Yield Yak can NOT be found in their smart-contracts repository. An easy fix would be to list the addresses somewhere within the GitBook with the addresses explicitly written.    Contracts were eventually located in Snowtrace.    A screenshot of the smart contract files 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: 40%

These contracts receive more than 10 interactions a month.

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: 100%

Yield Yak's smart-contracts repository logs 284 commits with 3 branches, earning the protocol 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: 0

The Yield Yak team constitutes of members operating under anonymity.

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

The protocol's software architecture is somewhat documented within the smart-contract README.md file but there are just brief touches on smart contract interactions. This is extremely limited due the lack of information on completeness of the architecture documentation. This should be fixed.

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%

Software functions are documented within the respective repositories' README.md files. Here is an example, the yak-aggregator repository README.md.

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%

Implicit traceability can be made by cross-referencing the contract names to the software functions. For that matter, the protocol earns a 60%.

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

52%

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

Answer: 40%

Yield Yak's test files record a 63% testing to code (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However, the reviewer's best judgement is the final deciding factor. The protocol earns 40% on this score based on TtC.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
TtC > 120% Both unit and system test visible
80%
TtC > 80% Both unit and system test visible
40%
TtC < 80% Some tests visible
0%
No tests obvious

11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)

Answer: 30%

There is no documented code coverage, but because of the 63% Test-to-Code ratio, some tests are evident, but not complete. Therefore, the protocol earns 30%.

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/yieldyak/yak-aggregator#run-tests(https://github.com/yieldyak/yak-aggregator#run-tests) for the Yak Aggregator, https://github.com/yieldyak/farm-contracts#tests for the farm contracts, etc.

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%

A report of the protocol's test results can be found in the Actions tab of the farm-contracts repository here. This earns the protocol 100%.  

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Detailed test report as described below
70%
GitHub code coverage report visible
0%
No test report evident

14. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)

Answer: No

This protocol has not undergone formal verification.

Score Guidance:
Yes
Formal Verification was performed and the report is readily available
No
Formal Verification was not performed and/or the report is not readily available.

15. Were the smart contracts deployed to a testnet? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

There's traces of testnet deployment on avascan testnet.  

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

20%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 20%

YieldYak is unaudited as mentioned 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%

Yield Yak promotes a bug bounty of 100 YAK for disclosure of bugs. Since the bug bounty is only on the Yield Yak platform, it is considered as inactive. At the time of writing, 1 YAK is worth $247USD, totalling $24 700 in total bounty value. This earns the protocol 20%.

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

76%

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%

The protocol's admin control information is easy to find, it can be found in the Treasury section of its docs.

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: 50%

Relevant contracts are identified as upgradeable but this is not applicable for every contract; the protocol earns 50% for covering some of the contracts' upgradeability.

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: 75%

The Opinionated Treasury mentions the treasury funds to be governed by a multisig and a Yak Deployer (OnlyOwner) can temporarily hold treasury funds as well as wield special rights to claim revenue on behalf of the platform. Other accounts mentioned are YY Contributors, YY Ecosystem and YY Team with MultiSig ownership.
However, not all contracts have their ownership identified; the rest can be found in the code. For that matter, the protocol earns 75% for covering part of the ownership explicitly in their docs.

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 mentioned in the Treasury section of its 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: 100%

The language used for 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: 0%

There is no evidence of Pause Control documentation.

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

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 60%

The protocol touches upon timelocks in their "Timelock Protects Users" section, where a timelock is identified. Within the timelock contract, the duration is specified to be 2 days for asset recovery, 4 days for ownership transfer and 8 hours for fee changes. However, due to the absence of information on the affected contracts for the timelock , the protocol earns 60%.

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%

The timelock durations found in the contract range between 8 hours and 4 days, which is enough to score 100% on this question.

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

13%

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: 0

There is no documentation on Oracle usage.

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

A front-running protection mechanism is described for the reinvest button function in their "Protection Mechanism" section.    

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: No

There is no documentation of flashloan attack mitigation techniques for the protocol.

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
1// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
2pragma solidity 0.8.13;
3
4import "../lib/Ownable.sol";
5import "../lib/SafeMath.sol";
6import "../lib/SafeERC20.sol";
7
8/**
9 * @title YY Staking
10 * @author Yield Yak
11 * @notice YyStaking is a contract that allows ERC20 dpeosits and receives rewards from token balances which may be
12 * transferred in without an additional function call. The contract is based on StableJoeStaking from Trader Joe.
13 * Users deposit X and receive a share of what has been sent based on their participation of the total deposits.
14 * It is similar to a MasterChef, but we allow for claiming of different reward tokens.
15 * Every time `updateReward(token)` is called, We distribute the balance of that tokens as rewards to users that are
16 * currently staking inside this contract, and they can claim it using `withdraw(0)`
17 */
18contract YyStaking is Ownable {
19    using SafeMath for uint256;
20    using SafeERC20 for IERC20;
21
22    /// @notice Info of each user
23    struct UserInfo {
24        uint256 amount;
25        mapping(IERC20 => uint256) rewardDebt;
26        /**
27         * @notice We do some fancy math here. Basically, any point in time, the amount of deposit tokens
28         * entitled to a user but is pending to be distributed is:
29         *
30         *   pending reward = (user.amount * accRewardPerShare) - user.rewardDebt[token]
31         *
32         * Whenever a user deposits or withdraws. Here's what happens:
33         *   1. accRewardPerShare (and `lastRewardBalance`) gets updated
34         *   2. User receives the pending reward sent to his/her address
35         *   3. User's `amount` gets updated
36         *   4. User's `rewardDebt[token]` gets updated
37         */
38    }
39
40    /// @notice Farm deposit token
41    IERC20 public depositToken;
42
43    /// @dev Internal balance of depositToken, this gets updated on user deposits / withdrawals
44    /// this allows to reward users with depositToken
45    uint256 public internalBalance;
46
47    /// @notice Array of tokens that users can claim
48    IERC20[] public rewardTokens;
49    mapping(IERC20 => bool) public isRewardToken;
50
51    /// @notice Last reward balance of `token`
52    mapping(IERC20 => uint256) public lastRewardBalance;
53
54    address public feeCollector;
55
56    /// @notice The deposit fee, scaled to `DEPOSIT_FEE_PERCENT_PRECISION`
57    uint256 public depositFeePercent;
58
59    /// @dev The precision of `depositFeePercent`
60    uint256 internal constant DEPOSIT_FEE_PERCENT_PRECISION = 10000;
61
62    /// @notice Accumulated `token` rewards per share, scaled to `ACC_REWARD_PER_SHARE_PRECISION`
63    mapping(IERC20 => uint256) public accRewardPerShare;
64    /// @notice The precision of `accRewardPerShare`
65    uint256 public ACC_REWARD_PER_SHARE_PRECISION;
66
67    /// @dev Info of each user that stakes
68    mapping(address => UserInfo) private userInfo;
69
70    /// @notice Emitted when a user deposits
71    event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 amount, uint256 fee);
72
73    /// @notice Emitted when feeCollector changes the fee collector
74    event FeeCollectorChanged(address newFeeCollector, address oldFeeCollector);
75
76    /// @notice Emitted when owner changes the deposit fee percentage
77    event DepositFeeChanged(uint256 newFee, uint256 oldFee);
78
79    /// @notice Emitted when a user withdraws
80    event Withdraw(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
81
82    /// @notice Emitted when a user claims reward
83    event ClaimReward(address indexed user, address indexed rewardToken, uint256 amount);
84
85    /// @notice Emitted when a user emergency withdraws
86    event EmergencyWithdraw(address indexed user, uint256 amount);
87
88    /// @notice Emitted when owner adds a token to the reward tokens list
89    event RewardTokenAdded(address token);
90
91    /// @notice Emitted when owner removes a token from the reward tokens list
92    event RewardTokenRemoved(address token);
93
94    constructor(
95        IERC20 _depositToken,
96        IERC20 _rewardToken,
97        address _feeCollector
98    ) {
99        require(address(_depositToken) != address(0), "YyStaking::depositToken can't be address(0)");
100        require(address(_rewardToken) != address(0), "YyStaking::rewardToken can't be address(0)");
101        require(_feeCollector != address(0), "YyStaking::feeCollector can't be address(0)");
102
103        depositToken = _depositToken;
104        feeCollector = _feeCollector;
105
106        isRewardToken[_rewardToken] = true;
107        rewardTokens.push(_rewardToken);
108        ACC_REWARD_PER_SHARE_PRECISION = 1e24;
109    }
110
111    /**
112     * @notice Deposit for reward token allocation
113     * @param amount The amount of depositToken to deposit
114     */
115    function deposit(uint256 amount) external {
116        _deposit(msg.sender, amount);
117    }
118
119    /**
120     * @notice Deposit on behalf of another account
121     * @param account Account to deposit for
122     * @param amount The amount of depositToken to deposit
123     */
124    function depositFor(address account, uint256 amount) external {
125        _deposit(account, amount);
126    }
127
128    /**
129     * @notice Deposit using Permit
130     * @param amount The amount of depositToken to deposit
131     * @param deadline The time at which to expire the signature
132     * @param v The recovery byte of the signature
133     * @param r Half of the ECDSA signature pair
134     * @param s Half of the ECDSA signature pair
135     */
136    function depositWithPermit(
137        uint256 amount,
138        uint256 deadline,
139        uint8 v,
140        bytes32 r,
141        bytes32 s
142    ) external {
143        depositToken.permit(msg.sender, address(this), amount, deadline, v, r, s);
144        _deposit(msg.sender, amount);
145    }
146
147    function _deposit(address _account, uint256 _amount) internal {
148        UserInfo storage user = userInfo[_account];
149
150        uint256 _fee = _amount.mul(depositFeePercent).div(DEPOSIT_FEE_PERCENT_PRECISION);
151        uint256 _amountMinusFee = _amount.sub(_fee);
152
153        uint256 _previousAmount = user.amount;
154        uint256 _newAmount = user.amount.add(_amountMinusFee);
155        user.amount = _newAmount;
156
157        uint256 _len = rewardTokens.length;
158        for (uint256 i; i < _len; i++) {
159            IERC20 _token = rewardTokens[i];
160            updateReward(_token);
161
162            uint256 _previousRewardDebt = user.rewardDebt[_token];
163            user.rewardDebt[_token] = _newAmount.mul(accRewardPerShare[_token]).div(ACC_REWARD_PER_SHARE_PRECISION);
164
165            if (_previousAmount != 0) {
166                uint256 _pending = _previousAmount
167                    .mul(accRewardPerShare[_token])
168                    .div(ACC_REWARD_PER_SHARE_PRECISION)
169                    .sub(_previousRewardDebt);
170                if (_pending != 0) {

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Solidity
0
10985
1033
800
9152
14506
191

Tests to Code: 9152 / 14506 = 63 %