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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

iLayer

3%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

iLayer

Final score:3%
Date:20 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:3%

FAIL

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
BnB Smart Chain
#QuestionAnswer
7%
1.0%
2.70%
3.No
4.0%
5.No
11%
6.Yes
7.No
8.0%
9.0%
10.0%
0%
11.0%
12.0%
13.No
14.0%
15.0%
16.0%
0%
17.0%
18.0%
0%
19.0%
20.0%
21.0%
22.0%
Total:3%

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.

Code And Team

7%

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

1. Are the executing code addresses readily available? (%)

Answer: 0%

The executing code addresses were difficult to find and were not provided upon request. Only two executing contract addresses could be found, as indicated in the Appendix.​

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, 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. Is the code actively being used? (%)

Answer: 70%

Activity is over 10 transactions a week on contract , 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. Is there a public software repository? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There is no public software repository.

Is there 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, it gets a "Yes". For teams with private repositories, this answer is "No"

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%

There is no public software repository, so no development history is visible.

This metric checks if the software repository demonstrates a strong steady history. This is normally demonstrated by commits, branches and releases in a software repository. A healthy history demonstrates a history of more than a month (at a minimum).

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)? (Y/N)

Answer: No

The team's identity could not be found. Aside from the pseudonym "Richie Van Gogh", who appears to have been contracted for website design, the iLayer team is anonymous.

For a "Yes" in this question, the real names of some team members must be public on the website or other documentation (LinkedIn, etc). If the team is anonymous, then this question is a "No".

Documentation

11%

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

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

Answer: Yes

7. Are the basic software functions documented? (Y/N)

Answer: No

The basic software functions are documented in the whitepaper.

8. Does the software function documentation fully (100%) cover the deployed contracts? (%)

Answer: 0%

No deployed contracts are detailed, making comparison impossible.

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. Are there sufficiently detailed comments for all functions within the deployed contract code (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no public software repository, making comment analysis impossible.

The Comments to Code (CtC) ratio is the primary metric for this score.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
CtC > 100 Useful comments consistently on all code
90 - 70%
CtC > 70 Useful comment on most code
60 - 20%
CtC > 20 Some useful commenting
0%
CtC < 20 No useful commenting

10. Is it possible to trace from software documentation to the implementation in code (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no project documentation aside from a non-technical whitepaper, making traceability or even comparison impossible.

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%

11. Full test suite (Covers all the deployed code) (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no public software repository, making any test to code metric impossible to calculate. The code cited is from the BSC scan of the token contract address (under "Read Contract").

This score is guided by the Test to Code ratio (TtC). Generally a good test to code ratio is over 100%. However the reviewers best judgement 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

12. Code coverage (Covers all the deployed lines of code, or explains misses) (%)

Answer: 0%

No code coverage testing could be found.

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 reasonably complete set of tests
30%
Some tests evident but not complete
0%
No test for coverage seen

13. Scripts and instructions to run the tests? (Y/N)

Answer: No

There are no documents nor public repository meaning there are no available testing scripts or instructions on how to run them.

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 0%

No test report is evident.

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

15. Formal Verification test done (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no formal verification.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no evidence of stress testing.

Security

0%

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

17. Did 3rd Party audits take place? (%)

Answer: 0%

No audits have taken place, and there is no public repository.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Multiple Audits performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
90%
Single audit performed before deployment and results public and implemented or not required
70%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and no changes required. Audit report is public
50%
Audit(s) performed after deployment and changes needed but not implemented
20%
No audit performed
0%
Audit Performed after deployment, existence is public, report is not public and no improvements deployed OR smart contract address not found, (where question 1 is 0%)
Deduct 25% if code is in a private repo and no note from auditors that audit is applicable to deployed code.

18. Is the bug bounty acceptable high? (%)

Answer: 0%

There is 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
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.

Access Controls

0%

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. Can a user clearly and quickly find the status of the access controls (%)

Answer: 0%

No admin control information could be found.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo, quick to find
70%
Clearly labelled and on website, docs or repo but takes a bit of looking
40%
Access control docs in multiple places and not well labelled
20%
Access control docs in multiple places and not labelled
0%
Admin Control information could not be found

20. Is the information clear and complete (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no access control information.

Percentage Score Guidance:
All the contracts are immutable -- 100% OR
a) All contracts are clearly labelled as upgradeable (or not) -- 30% AND
b) The type of ownership is clearly indicated (OnlyOwner / MultiSig / Defined Roles) -- 30% AND
c) The capabilities for change in the contracts are described -- 30%

21. Is the information in non-technical terms that pertain to the investments (%)

Answer: 0%

No admin control information could be found.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable
90%
Description relates to investments safety and updates in clear, complete non-software language
30%
Description all in software specific language
0%
No admin control information could be found

22. Is there Pause Control documentation including records of tests (%)

Answer: 0%

There is no pause control information.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
All the contracts are immutable or no pause control needed and this is explained OR 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

Appendices

 The author of this review is Rex of DeFi Safety.

Email: rex@defisafety.com
Twitter: @defisafety

I started with Ethereum just before the DAO and that was a wonderful education.  It showed the importance of code quality. The second Parity hack also showed the importance of good process.  Here my aviation background offers some value. Aerospace knows how to make reliable code using quality processes.
I was coaxed to go to EthDenver 2018 and there I started SecuEth.org with Bryant and Roman. We created guidelines on good processes for blockchain code development. We got EthFoundation funding to assist in their development Process Quality Reviews are an extension of the SecurEth guidelines that will further increase the quality processes in Solidity and Vyper development. DeFiSafety is my full time gig and we are working on funding vehicles for a permanent staff.

null
1abstract contract Context {
2    function _msgSender() internal view virtual returns (address payable) {
3        return payable(msg.sender);
4    }
56    function _msgData() internal view virtual returns (bytes memory) {
7        this; // silence state mutability warning without generating bytecode - see https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/issues/2691
8        return msg.data;
9    }
10}
111213interface IERC20 {
1415    function totalSupply() external view returns (uint256);
16    function balanceOf(address account) external view returns (uint256);
17    function transfer(address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
18    function allowance(address owner, address spender) external view returns (uint256);
19    function approve(address spender, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
20    function transferFrom(address sender, address recipient, uint256 amount) external returns (bool);
21    event Transfer(address indexed from, address indexed to, uint256 value);
22    event Approval(address indexed owner, address indexed spender, uint256 value);
23    
2425}
2627library SafeMath {
2829    function add(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
30        uint256 c = a + b;
31        require(c >= a, "SafeMath: addition overflow");
3233        return c;
34    }
3536    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
37        return sub(a, b, "SafeMath: subtraction overflow");
38    }
3940    function sub(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
41        require(b <= a, errorMessage);
42        uint256 c = a - b;
4344        return c;
45    }
4647    function mul(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
48        if (a == 0) {
49            return 0;
50        }
5152        uint256 c = a * b;
53        require(c / a == b, "SafeMath: multiplication overflow");
5455        return c;
56    }
575859    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
60        return div(a, b, "SafeMath: division by zero");
61    }
6263    function div(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
64        require(b > 0, errorMessage);
65        uint256 c = a / b;
66        // assert(a == b * c + a % b); // There is no case in which this doesn't hold
6768        return c;
69    }
7071    function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b) internal pure returns (uint256) {
72        return mod(a, b, "SafeMath: modulo by zero");
73    }
7475    function mod(uint256 a, uint256 b, string memory errorMessage) internal pure returns (uint256) {
76        require(b != 0, errorMessage);
77        return a % b;
78    }
79}
8081library Address {
8283    function isContract(address account) internal view returns (bool) {
84        // According to EIP-1052, 0x0 is the value returned for not-yet created accounts
85        // and 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470 is returned
86        / for accounts without code, i.e. `keccak256('')`
87        bytes32 codehash;
88        bytes32 accountHash = 0xc5d2460186f7233c927e7db2dcc703c0e500b653ca82273b7bfad8045d85a470;
89        / solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly
90        assembly { codehash := extcodehash(account) }
91        return (codehash != accountHash && codehash != 0x0);
92    }
9394    function sendValue(address payable recipient, uint256 amount) internal {
95        require(address(this).balance >= amount, "Address: insufficient balance");
9697        // solhint-disable-next-line avoid-low-level-calls, avoid-call-value
98        (bool success, ) = recipient.call{ value: amount }("");
99        require(success, "Address: unable to send value, recipient may have reverted");
100    }
101102103    function functionCall(address target, bytes memory data) internal returns (bytes memory) {
104      return functionCall(target, data, "Address: low-level call failed");
105    }
106107    function functionCall(address target, bytes memory data, string memory errorMessage) internal returns (bytes memory) {
108        return _functionCallWithValue(target, data, 0, errorMessage);
109    }
110111    function functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 value) internal returns (bytes memory) {
112        return functionCallWithValue(target, data, value, "Address: low-level call with value failed");
113    }
114115    function functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 value, string memory errorMessage) internal returns (bytes memory) {
116        require(address(this).balance >= value, "Address: insufficient balance for call");
117        return _functionCallWithValue(target, data, value, errorMessage);
118    }
119120    function _functionCallWithValue(address target, bytes memory data, uint256 weiValue, string memory errorMessage) private returns (bytes memory) {
121        require(isContract(target), "Address: call to non-contract");
122123        (bool success, bytes memory returndata) = target.call{ value: weiValue }(data);
124        if (success) {
125            return returndata;
126        } else {
127            
128            if (returndata.length > 0) {
129                assembly {
130                    let returndata_size := mload(returndata)
131                    revert(add(32, returndata), returndata_size)
132                }
133            } else {
134                revert(errorMessage);
135            }
136        }
137    }
138}
139140contract Ownable is Context {
141    address private _owner;
142    address private _previousOwner;
143    uint256 private _lockTime;
144145    event OwnershipTransferred(address indexed previousOwner, address indexed newOwner);
146147    constructor () {
148        address msgSender = _msgSender();
149        _owner = msgSender;
150        emit OwnershipTransferred(address(0), msgSender);
151    }
152153    function owner() public view returns (address) {
154        return _owner;
155    }   
156    
157    modifier onlyOwner() {
158        require(_owner == _msgSender(), "Ownable: caller is not the owner");
159        _;
160    }
161    
162    function renounceOwnership() public virtual onlyOwner {
163        emit OwnershipTransferred(_owner, address(0));
164        _owner = address(0);
165    }

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
0
0
0
0
0
0

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
0
0
0
0
0
0