If you notice some outdated information please let us know!
Process Quality Review (0.9)
TermMax
PASS
Scoring Appendix
The final review score is indicated as a percentage. The percentage is calculated as Achieved Points due to MAX Possible Points. For each element the answer can be either Yes/No or a percentage. For a detailed breakdown of the individual weights of each question, please consult this document.
Very simply, the review looks for the following declarations from the developer's site. With these declarations, it is reasonable to trust the smart contracts.
- Here are my smart contract on the blockchain(s)
- Here is the documentation that explains what my smart contracts do
- Here are the tests I ran to verify my smart contracts
- Here are all the security steps I took to safeguard these contracts
- Here is an explanation of the control I have to change these smart contracts
- Here is how these smart contracts get information from outside the blockchain (if applicable)
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.
Code and Team
100%
This section looks at the code deployed on the relevant chains and team aspects. The document explaining these questions is here.
1. Are the smart contract addresses easy to find? (%)
The contract addresses were easy to find. In the docs, go to Technical Details then Contract Addresses and a clear list is available there.
2. Does the protocol have a public software repository? (Y/N)
Yes it does: https://github.com/term-structure
3. Is the team public (not anonymous)?
Yes, the team details are clearly on the Team page of their website.
4. How responsive are the devs when we present our initial report?
The team reached out to DeFiSafety for this review. A default 100%.
Code Documentation
70%
This section looks at the software documentation. The document explaining these questions is here.
5. Is there a whitepaper? (Y/N)
A whitepaper is found on the github.
6. Is the protocol's software architecture documented? (%)
Based on private data is supplied to DeFiSafety, there are comprehensive architecture documents in addition to the public document described below. This drives a score of 100%. There is a an architecture diagram. It is reasonably basic and difficult to find. It is at the very bottom of the Roles page.
7. Does the software documentation fully cover the deployed contracts' source code? (%)
There is pretty good commenting in the software. That there are descriptions of some of the functions (those that are impacted by access control) in the Roles page. All of this together gives a good, but incomplete level of software documentation. The software documentation is good, but light, as it usually is. The function documentation is probably incomplete. Without a detailed assessment we are unsure how much is covered. Together, this gives a score of 60%.
8. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)
SoME traceability between the white paper and the software is evident in the comments. This in addition to the list of functions in the Roles page drives a score of 40%.
9. Is the documentation organized to ensure information availability and clarity? (%)
There is no documentation section that covers software documentation. It is all in the Roles page where one would not expect software documentation and architecture. But it is there and once you find it it is well organized. Because it is in the Roles page and the functions are sorted via their access control capability, the reader is unsure if the list of functions is complete. Overall this matches with a score of 50%.
Testing
89%
This section covers the testing process of the protocol’s smart contract code previous to its deployment on the mainnet. The document explaining these questions is here.
10. Has the protocol tested their deployed code? (%)
Test to Code = 38490 / 19217 = 200% which gives a score of 100% as per guidance.
11. How covered is the protocol's code? (%)
Based on private documents shared with DeFiSafety, the code coverage is 90% overall files in the data we were provided. This drives a score of 90%.
12. Is there a detailed report of the protocol's test results?(%)
Based on private documents shared with DeFiSafety, there is a detailed test report with descriptions of all past tests and code coverage resulting from those tests. Score 100%
13. Has the protocol undergone Formal Verification? (Y/N)
While there is clear evidence of fuzz testing, no evidence of formal verification is available. This drives a No response.
Security
94%
This section looks at the 3rd party software audits done. It is explained in this document.
14. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)
There are three audits from ABDK and one audit competition from Cantina. All of the audits appear to be of high quality.Virtually all issues were addressed and fixed by the protocol. There were a reasonably high number of issues found (which were fixed). Some were of high importance, never critical. Given the number of issues found, there is a minor concern over software quality. Given the number of audits and the fact that all issues were resolved, this drives a score of 100%
15. Is there a matrix of audit applicability on deployed code (%)? Please refer to the example doc for reference.
Given that there are only four audits available, the score defaults to 100%. But if more audits are added, the score would go down because the audit applicability is unclear. A user wants to know that all of the code being executed has been audited. This is a reasonable expectation. The scope of each of the four audits are clearly described. What is not described is how much of the total code the audits cover.
16. Is the bug bounty value acceptably high (%)
There is an Immunifi bug bounty of 50 K maximum payout. Term Mac has a TVL above 30 million as of the writing of this report. This drives a score of 50%, as per our guidance.
17. Is there documented protocol monitoring (%)?
Documented protocol monitoring is provided by HyperNative. This drives and auto pause mechanism and a process for alerting the team. These suffice as documented incident response protocol. The two combined drive a score of 100%.
18. Is there documented protocol front-end monitoring (%)?
A front end security page describes multiple levels of front end security covering all aspects in our guidance. This drives a score of 100%.
Admin Controls
97%
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.
19. Is the protocol code immutable or upgradeable? (%)
All the core trading contracts are immutable, as can be seen with this example. Immutable code gives users the perfect protection against unexpected updates This drives a score of 100%
20. Is the protocol's code upgradeability clearly explained in non technical terms? (%)
The primary trading contracts are all immutable. This is described on the Best Security Practices page. This clear description drives a score of 100%.
21. Are the admin addresses, roles and capabilities clearly explained? (%)
22. Are the signers of the admin addresses clearly listed and provably distinct humans? (%)
All signers of the multisigs are clearly listed, though not described or provably human. This drives a score of 60% as per our guidance.
23. Is there a robust documented transaction signing policy? Please refer to the Example doc for reference.(%)
In a private doc shared with DeFiSafety, TermMax showed a comprehensive transaction signing policy that took aspects of our policy example and expanded it with Incident Response, OpSec and backup. Excellent document and an example for the industry.
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.
24. Are Oracles relevant? (Y/N)
25. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)
There is comprehensive and complete Oracle documentation including the primary price feed provider and heartbeat for every Oracle on every chain. This drives a score of 100%.
26. Can flashloan attacks be applied to the protocol, and if so, are those flashloan attack risks mitigated? (Y/N)
Flash loan protection is described and mitigated in the risks page.