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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Zyberswap

37%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Zyberswap

Final score:37%
Date:28 May 2023
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:NV
PQR Score:37%

FAIL

Protocol Website:https://www.zyberswap.io/

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
Arbitrum
#QuestionAnswer
78%
1.100%
2.100%
3.No
4.0%
5.100
14%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.0%
0%
10.0%
11.0%
12.No
13.0%
14.No
15.No
65%
16.75%
17.0%
13%
18.0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
23.0%
24.100%
25.50%
50%
26.100
27.No
28.No
Total:37%

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

78%

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

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

Answer: 100%

They can be found here, as indicated in the Appendix.

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

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

Answer: 100%

Contract ZyberChef is used well over 100 times a day, as indicated in the Appendix.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
More than 10 transactions a day
70%
More than 10 transactions a week
40%
More than 10 transactions a month
10%
Less than 10 transactions a month
0%
No activity

3. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Zyberswap is closed source - no public GitHub repositories are available.

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: 0%

As Zyberswap is closed source, we cannot verify development history.

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

While Zyberswap team members are anonymous, they have undergone a KYC procedure.

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

14%

This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.

6. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)

Answer: Yes

Location: https://docs.zyberswap.io/

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

Answer: No

Zyberswap does not document the functions of their smart contracts' solidity code.

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: 0%

Zyberswap does not document the functions of their smart contracts' solidity code.

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: 0%

Since Zyberswap does not document the functions of their smart contracts' solidity code, and their source code is closed source, no traceability is possible.

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

0%

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

Answer: 0%

Since Zyberswap has not open-sourced their code, it is impossible for us to quantify their testing suite.

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: 0%

No code coverage of Zyberswap's code is evident.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Documented full coverage
99 - 51%
Value of test coverage from documented results
50%
No indication of code coverage but clearly there is a complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

12. Does the protocol provide scripts and instructions to run their tests? (Y/N)

Answer: No

Since Zyberswap's testing suite is generally unavailable, so are the scripts and instructions to run then.

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%

Since Zyberswap's testing suite is generally unavailable, so are the test reports.

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

Zyberswap has not undergone a formal verification.

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

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

Answer: No

No testnet deployment is evident.

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

65%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 75%

Zyberswap has undergone two pre-deployment audits. However, due to the protocol being closed-source, it is impossible to verify whether the audited code is the one currently deployed or maintained. As such, 25% will be deducted.

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: 0%

Zyberswap offers no bug bounty program.

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

13%

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: 0%

Zyberswap's admin controls are not documented anywhere.

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: 0%

While upgradeability is implicitly stated in Zyberswap's docs, no explicit mentions of which contracts are upgradeable exists.

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: 0%

No smart contract ownership parameters are defined in Zyberswap's 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: 0%

No smart contract upgrade capabilities are described in Zyberswap's docs.

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: 0%

There exists no degree of admin control information in Zyberswap's docs.

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%

Zyberswap's docs do not mention any smart contract pausing functions.

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: 100%

Zyberswap's timelock is documented here. While a duration is not stated in the docs, it can be verified on Arbiscan.

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: 50%

Zyberswap's timelock is 24 hours.

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

50%

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

Zyberswap, as an AMM, used the classic x * y = k formula to assure a continuous balance within the liquidity pools.

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: No

Zyberswap does not document any countermeasures against front running.

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

Zyberswap does not document any countermeasures against liquidity attacks or flash loan-related exploits.

Score Guidance:
Yes
The protocol's documentation includes information on how they mitigate the possibilities and extents of flash loan attacks.
No
The protocol's documentation does not include any information regarding the mitigation of flash loan attacks.

Appendices

null
1contract ZyberChef is Ownable, ReentrancyGuard {
2    using BoringERC20 for IBoringERC20;
3
4    // Info of each user.
5    struct UserInfo {
6        uint256 amount; // How many LP tokens the user has provided.
7        uint256 rewardDebt; // Reward debt. See explanation below.
8        uint256 rewardLockedUp; // Reward locked up.
9        uint256 nextHarvestUntil; // When can the user harvest again.
10    }
11
12    // Info of each pool.
13    struct PoolInfo {
14        IBoringERC20 lpToken; // Address of LP token contract.
15        uint256 allocPoint; // How many allocation points assigned to this pool. Zyber to distribute per block.
16        uint256 lastRewardTimestamp; // Last block number that Zyber distribution occurs.
17        uint256 accZyberPerShare; // Accumulated Zyber per share, times 1e18. See below.
18        uint16 depositFeeBP; // Deposit fee in basis points
19        uint256 harvestInterval; // Harvest interval in seconds
20        uint256 totalLp; // Total token in Pool
21        IMultipleRewards[] rewarders; // Array of rewarder contract for pools with incentives
22    }
23
24    IBoringERC20 public zyber;
25
26    // Zyber tokens created per second
27    uint256 public zyberPerSec;
28
29    // Max harvest interval: 14 days
30    uint256 public constant MAXIMUM_HARVEST_INTERVAL = 14 days;
31
32    // Maximum deposit fee rate: 10%
33    uint16 public constant MAXIMUM_DEPOSIT_FEE_RATE = 1000;
34
35    // Info of each pool
36    PoolInfo[] public poolInfo;
37
38    // Info of each user that stakes LP tokens.
39    mapping(uint256 => mapping(address => UserInfo)) public userInfo;
40
41    // Total allocation points. Must be the sum of all allocation points in all pools.
42    uint256 public totalAllocPoint;
43
44    // The timestamp when Zyber mining starts.
45    uint256 public startTimestamp;
46
47    // Total locked up rewards
48    uint256 public totalLockedUpRewards;
49
50    // Total Zyber in Zyber Pools (can be multiple pools)
51    uint256 public totalZyberInPools;
52
53    // marketing address.
54    address public marketingAddress;
55
56    // deposit fee address if needed
57    address public feeAddress;
58
59    // Percentage of pool rewards that goto the marketing.
60    uint256 public marketingPercent = 45; // 4.5%
61
62    // Percentage of pool rewards that goto the marketing.
63    uint256 public teamPercent = 90; // 9%
64
65    address public teamAddress;
66
67    // The precision factor
68    uint256 private constant ACC_TOKEN_PRECISION = 1e12;
69
70    modifier validatePoolByPid(uint256 _pid) {
71        require(_pid < poolInfo.length, "Pool does not exist");
72        _;
73    }
74
75    event Add(
76        uint256 indexed pid,
77        uint256 allocPoint,
78        IBoringERC20 indexed lpToken,
79        uint16 depositFeeBP,
80        uint256 harvestInterval,
81        IMultipleRewards[] indexed rewarders
82    );
83
84    event Set(
85        uint256 indexed pid,
86        uint256 allocPoint,
87        uint16 depositFeeBP,
88        uint256 harvestInterval,
89        IMultipleRewards[] indexed rewarders
90    );
91
92    event UpdatePool(
93        uint256 indexed pid,
94        uint256 lastRewardTimestamp,
95        uint256 lpSupply,
96        uint256 accZyberPerShare
97    );
98
99    event Deposit(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
100
101    event Withdraw(address indexed user, uint256 indexed pid, uint256 amount);
102
103    event EmergencyWithdraw(
104        address indexed user,
105        uint256 indexed pid,
106        uint256 amount
107    );
108
109    event EmissionRateUpdated(
110        address indexed caller,
111        uint256 previousValue,
112        uint256 newValue
113    );
114
115    event RewardLockedUp(
116        address indexed user,
117        uint256 indexed pid,
118        uint256 amountLockedUp
119    );
120
121    event AllocPointsUpdated(
122        address indexed caller,
123        uint256 previousAmount,
124        uint256 newAmount
125    );
126
127    event SetmarketingAddress(
128        address indexed oldAddress,
129        address indexed newAddress
130    );
131
132    event SetTeamAddress(
133        address indexed oldAddress,
134        address indexed newAddress
135    );
136
137    event SetFeeAddress(address indexed oldAddress, address indexed newAddress);
138
139    event SetInvestorAddress(
140        address indexed oldAddress,
141        address indexed newAddress
142    );
143
144    event SetmarketingPercent(uint256 oldPercent, uint256 newPercent);
145
146    event SetTeamPercent(uint256 oldPercent, uint256 newPercent);
147
148    constructor(
149        IBoringERC20 _zyber,
150        uint256 _zyberPerSec,
151        address _marketingAddress,
152        uint256 _marketingPercent,
153        address _teamAddress,
154        uint256 _teamPercent,
155        address _feeAddress
156    ) {
157        require(
158            _marketingPercent <= 1000,
159            "constructor: invalid marketing percent value"
160        );
161
162        startTimestamp = block.timestamp + (60 * 60 * 24 * 365);
163
164        zyber = _zyber;
165        zyberPerSec = _zyberPerSec;
166        marketingAddress = _marketingAddress;
167        teamAddress = _teamAddress;
168        feeAddress = _feeAddress;
169        teamPercent = _teamPercent;
170    }
N/A