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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Pool Together 3.0

91%

Process Quality Review (0.7)

Pool Together 3.0

Final score:91%
Date:14 Sep 2021
Audit Process:version 0.7
Author:Nick of DeFiSafety
PQR Score:91%

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.

The blockchain used by this protocol
BnB Smart Chain
Celo
Ethereum
Polygon
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.Yes
84%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.38%
10.60%
83%
11.100%
12.94%
13.Yes
14.70%
15.0%
16.100%
90%
17.100%
18.20%
100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
Total:91%

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.

Code And Team

100%

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: 100%

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: 100%

Activity is 177 transactions a day on Polygon contract 0xEE06AbE9e2Af61cabcb13170e01266Af2DEFa946, 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: Yes

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: 100%

With 878 commits and 30 branches, this is clearly a well-maintained repository.

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: Yes

Location: Protocol members are clearly listed in their medium articles.

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

84%

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: Yes

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

Answer: 100%

All contracts and functions are clearly explained with well-ordered and robust documentation.

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: 38%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 38% commenting to code (CtC).

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: 60%

There is nonexplicit traceability between the code and the documentation at a requirement level for all code.

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

83%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix. As per the SLOC, there is 171% testing to code (TtC).

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: 94%

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: Yes

14. Report of the results (%)

Answer: 70%

Coveralls test report can be found at https://coveralls.io/jobs/87058204.

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 evidence of formal verification.

16. Stress Testing environment (%)

Answer: 100%

There is evidence of stress testing on the Rinkeby Testnet for many protocol versions.

Security

90%

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

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

Answer: 100%

PoolTogether has undergone three external audits. Open Zeppelin has audited the protocol twice, and ditCraft has once - though no proof could be found for this third audit.

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: 20%

There is a bug bounty program offering up to $25,000.

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

100%

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: 100%

Controls are clearly detailed in the docs here: https://docs.pooltogether.com/governance/controls

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: 100%

All Contracts are clearly labelled as non upgreadeable, AKA immutable.

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: 100%

All contracts are clearly labelled as non-upgradeable.

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: 100%

All contracts are clearly labelled as non-upgradeable.

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: [email protected]
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.

1abstract contract PrizePool is PrizePoolInterface, OwnableUpgradeable, ReentrancyGuardUpgradeable, TokenControllerInterface, IERC721ReceiverUpgradeable {
2  using SafeMathUpgradeable for uint256;
3  using SafeCastUpgradeable for uint256;
4  using SafeERC20Upgradeable for IERC20Upgradeable;
5  using SafeERC20Upgradeable for IERC721Upgradeable;
6  using MappedSinglyLinkedList for MappedSinglyLinkedList.Mapping;
7  using ERC165CheckerUpgradeable for address;
89  /// @dev Emitted when an instance is initialized
10  event Initialized(
11    address reserveRegistry,
12    uint256 maxExitFeeMantissa
13  );
1415  /// @dev Event emitted when controlled token is added
16  event ControlledTokenAdded(
17    ControlledTokenInterface indexed token
18  );
1920  /// @dev Emitted when reserve is captured.
21  event ReserveFeeCaptured(
22    uint256 amount
23  );
2425  event AwardCaptured(
26    uint256 amount
27  );
2829  /// @dev Event emitted when assets are deposited
30  event Deposited(
31    address indexed operator,
32    address indexed to,
33    address indexed token,
34    uint256 amount,
35    address referrer
36  );
3738  /// @dev Event emitted when interest is awarded to a winner
39  event Awarded(
40    address indexed winner,
41    address indexed token,
42    uint256 amount
43  );
4445  /// @dev Event emitted when external ERC20s are awarded to a winner
46  event AwardedExternalERC20(
47    address indexed winner,
48    address indexed token,
49    uint256 amount
50  );
5152  /// @dev Event emitted when external ERC20s are transferred out
53  event TransferredExternalERC20(
54    address indexed to,
55    address indexed token,
56    uint256 amount
57  );
5859  /// @dev Event emitted when external ERC721s are awarded to a winner
60  event AwardedExternalERC721(
61    address indexed winner,
62    address indexed token,
63    uint256[] tokenIds
64  );
6566  /// @dev Event emitted when assets are withdrawn instantly
67  event InstantWithdrawal(
68    address indexed operator,
69    address indexed from,
70    address indexed token,
71    uint256 amount,
72    uint256 redeemed,
73    uint256 exitFee
74  );
7576  event ReserveWithdrawal(
77    address indexed to,
78    uint256 amount
79  );
8081  /// @dev Event emitted when the Liquidity Cap is set
82  event LiquidityCapSet(
83    uint256 liquidityCap
84  );
8586  /// @dev Event emitted when the Credit plan is set
87  event CreditPlanSet(
88    address token,
89    uint128 creditLimitMantissa,
90    uint128 creditRateMantissa
91  );
9293  /// @dev Event emitted when the Prize Strategy is set
94  event PrizeStrategySet(
95    address indexed prizeStrategy
96  );
9798  /// @dev Emitted when credit is minted
99  event CreditMinted(
100    address indexed user,
101    address indexed token,
102    uint256 amount
103  );
104105  /// @dev Emitted when credit is burned
106  event CreditBurned(
107    address indexed user,
108    address indexed token,
109    uint256 amount
110  );
111112  /// @dev Emitted when there was an error thrown awarding an External ERC721
113  event ErrorAwardingExternalERC721(bytes error);
114115116  struct CreditPlan {
117    uint128 creditLimitMantissa;
118    uint128 creditRateMantissa;
119  }
120121  struct CreditBalance {
122    uint192 balance;
123    uint32 timestamp;
124    bool initialized;
125  }
126127  /// @notice Semver Version
128  string constant public VERSION = "3.4.5";
129130  /// @dev Reserve to which reserve fees are sent
131  RegistryInterface public reserveRegistry;
132133  /// @dev An array of all the controlled tokens
134  ControlledTokenInterface[] internal _tokens;
135136  /// @dev The Prize Strategy that this Prize Pool is bound to.
137  TokenListenerInterface public prizeStrategy;
138139  /// @dev The maximum possible exit fee fraction as a fixed point 18 number.
140  /// For example, if the maxExitFeeMantissa is "0.1 ether", then the maximum exit fee for a withdrawal of 100 Dai will be 10 Dai
141  uint256 public maxExitFeeMantissa;
142143  /// @dev The total funds that have been allocated to the reserve
144  uint256 public reserveTotalSupply;
145146  /// @dev The total amount of funds that the prize pool can hold.
147  uint256 public liquidityCap;
148149  /// @dev the The awardable balance
150  uint256 internal _currentAwardBalance;
151152  /// @dev Stores the credit plan for each token.
153  mapping(address => CreditPlan) internal _tokenCreditPlans;
154155  /// @dev Stores each users balance of credit per token.
156  mapping(address => mapping(address => CreditBalance)) internal _tokenCreditBalances;
157158  /// @notice Initializes the Prize Pool
159  // @param _controlledTokens Array of ControlledTokens that are controlled by this Prize Pool.
160  // @param _maxExitFeeMantissa The maximum exit fee size
161  function initialize (
162    RegistryInterface _reserveRegistry,
163    ControlledTokenInterface[] memory _controlledTokens,
164    uint256 _maxExitFeeMantissa
165  )
166    public
167    initializer
168  {
169    require(address(_reserveRegistry) != address(0), "PrizePool/reserveRegistry-not-zero");
170    uint256 controlledTokensLength = _controlledTokens.length;
171    _tokens = new ControlledTokenInterface[](controlledTokensLength);
172173    for (uint256 i = 0; i < controlledTokensLength; i++) {
174      ControlledTokenInterface controlledToken = _controlledTokens[i];
175      _addControlledToken(controlledToken, i);
176    }
177    __Ownable_init();
178    __ReentrancyGuard_init();
179    _setLiquidityCap(uint256(-1));
180181    reserveRegistry = _reserveRegistry;
182    maxExitFeeMantissa = _maxExitFeeMantissa;
183184    emit Initialized(
185      address(_reserveRegistry),
186      maxExitFeeMantissa
187    );
188  }

Solidity Contracts

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
Solidity
36
3762
612
869
2281
217

Comments to Code: 869 / 2281 =  38 %

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Code
Complexity
JavaScript
44
5125
1059
161
3905
65

Tests to Code: 3905 / 2281 = 171 %