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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Uniswap V3

96%

Previous versions

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Uniswap V3

Final score:96%
Date:04 May 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:David J. Desjardins
PQR Score:96%

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
Arbitrum
Ethereum
Polygon
Optimism
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
94%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.60%
80%
10.100%
11.50%
12.Yes
13.100%
14.No
15.Yes
99%
16.100%
17.90%
100%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.100%
24.100%
25.100%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:96%

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.

Smart Contracts & Team

100%

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 at https://docs.uniswap.org/protocol/reference/deployments, 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 SwapRouter02.sol was used over 25K 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: Yes

Location: https://github.com/Uniswap/v3-core

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 1000 commits and 2 branches, Uniswap V3 has a healthy software repository.

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

Where we found the team is documented in our team appendix at the end of this report. The majority of Uniswap's contributors are public, linking twitters, personal websites, and using pictures of themselves.

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

Location: https://uniswap.org/whitepaper-v3.pdf

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

Answer: Yes

Uniswap has a video describing the functioning of concentrated liquidity, additionally, there are many other novice-friendly explanations in their doc's overview section.  Even better, Uniswap's Engineering Lead, Noah Zinsmeister, created a video where he walks the viewer through the Uniswap code as well as other videos. I believe this is something brilliant that developers should do more often, I just wish Uniswap had this published it as well.

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%

There is full coverage of deployed contracts by software function documentation in the "core" section of the Uniswap docs.

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%

There is non-explicit traceability between software documentation and implemented 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

80%

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

Answer: 100%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report. As per the SLOC, there is 7333/1602= ~478% 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 reviewer's 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

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

Answer: 50%

No coverage report could be found. However, Uniswap clearly has a very robust testing suite.

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/Uniswap/v3-core#uniswap-v3

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%

Detailed test reports for unit tests, mythx test, fuzz tests, and more can be found at https://github.com/Uniswap/v3-core/actions/workflows/tests.yml. (you need to sign in to view the logs).

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

Uniswap v3 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 is evidence of Uniswap's testnet deployments at https://github.com/Uniswap/v3-periphery/blob/main/deploys.md#deployment-addresses.

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

99%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 100%

Uniswap V3 1.0.0 was deployed on Mat 5th 2021.  Uniswap V3 was audited by Trail of Bits on March 12th 2021.  Uniswap V3 was audited by ABDK on March 23rd.    Trail of bits found some high to mid severity issues, while ABDK uncovered an abnormally large number of minor issues, 159. The trail of bits audit does not specify whether the changes have been implemented.  

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: 90%

This protocol offers a partially active bug bounty of up to $500K.  In addition, the UNI Grants Program has pledged $1.5m to their internal 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

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.

18. Is the protocol's admin control information easy to find?

Answer: 100%

Admin control information is documented at this location, in their whitepaper, and in their docs. This was quick to find, however, it would be nice if all governance information was published in the same location.

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: 100%

Uniswap clearly details the permissionless and immutable nature of their V3 deployment here

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: 100%

Smart Contracts are owned by the Uniswap governance contract, which is then controlled by UNI token holders.

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 identified in the Uniswap V3 core whitepaper.  The capabilities are as follows:  - The factory is owned by UNI tokenholders, who do not have the ability to halt the operations of any core contracts.  - UNI holders can turn on and off protocol fees  - Once activated, UNI holders can vary the protocol fees from anywhere between 10% to 25% on a per pool basis  - UNI holders can add additional fee tiers, while doing so they can also define the tickSpacing  (tickSpacing is the discrete demarcations in the concentrated liquidity provision distribution that liquidity providers can choose from.)  -UNI holders cannot change fee tiers and tickSpacing  -UNI governance can transfer ownership to another address

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%

Uniswap makes sure that users know that the protocol is immutable and that no entity can abruptly change the parameters. Uniswap makes this information readily available in user-friendly language here.

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: 100%

Uniswap cannot be paused due to its immutable nature. This is described here.

Percentage Score Guidance:
100%
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

24. Is there sufficient Timelock documentation? (%)

Answer: 100%

This protocol has timelock documentation which can be found at this location. Uniswap has a rigorous process for voting and implementing proposals.

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%

Uniswap has a hard coded minimum 48 hour timelock as outlined here.

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

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.

26. Is the protocol's Oracle sufficiently documented? (%)

Answer: 100%

The protocol's oracle source is documented at this location. The contracts dependent are identified. There is some relevant software function documentation.

Percentage 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

Uniswap mitigates the extent of front running attacks through a combination of TWAP and TWAL. Technical details can be found here.

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: Yes

This protocol does not document flashloan countermeasures. However, the inherent structure of the Uniswap TWAP makes it so that liquidity attacks are effectively mitigated via a core implementation of accumulator value checkpoints. As the price feed does not rely on a single point of data, a liquidity attack would not cause groundbreaking inaccurate prices or balances.

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

1// SPDX-License-Identifier: BUSL-1.1
2pragma solidity =0.7.6;
3
4import './interfaces/IUniswapV3Factory.sol';
5
6import './UniswapV3PoolDeployer.sol';
7import './NoDelegateCall.sol';
8
9import './UniswapV3Pool.sol';
10
11/// @title Canonical Uniswap V3 factory
12/// @notice Deploys Uniswap V3 pools and manages ownership and control over pool protocol fees
13contract UniswapV3Factory is IUniswapV3Factory, UniswapV3PoolDeployer, NoDelegateCall {
14    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
15    address public override owner;
16
17    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
18    mapping(uint24 => int24) public override feeAmountTickSpacing;
19    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
20    mapping(address => mapping(address => mapping(uint24 => address))) public override getPool;
21
22    constructor() {
23        owner = msg.sender;
24        emit OwnerChanged(address(0), msg.sender);
25
26        feeAmountTickSpacing[500] = 10;
27        emit FeeAmountEnabled(500, 10);
28        feeAmountTickSpacing[3000] = 60;
29        emit FeeAmountEnabled(3000, 60);
30        feeAmountTickSpacing[10000] = 200;
31        emit FeeAmountEnabled(10000, 200);
32    }
33
34    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
35    function createPool(
36        address tokenA,
37        address tokenB,
38        uint24 fee
39    ) external override noDelegateCall returns (address pool) {
40        require(tokenA != tokenB);
41        (address token0, address token1) = tokenA < tokenB ? (tokenA, tokenB) : (tokenB, tokenA);
42        require(token0 != address(0));
43        int24 tickSpacing = feeAmountTickSpacing[fee];
44        require(tickSpacing != 0);
45        require(getPool[token0][token1][fee] == address(0));
46        pool = deploy(address(this), token0, token1, fee, tickSpacing);
47        getPool[token0][token1][fee] = pool;
48        // populate mapping in the reverse direction, deliberate choice to avoid the cost of comparing addresses
49        getPool[token1][token0][fee] = pool;
50        emit PoolCreated(token0, token1, fee, tickSpacing, pool);
51    }
52
53    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
54    function setOwner(address _owner) external override {
55        require(msg.sender == owner);
56        emit OwnerChanged(owner, _owner);
57        owner = _owner;
58    }
59
60    /// @inheritdoc IUniswapV3Factory
61    function enableFeeAmount(uint24 fee, int24 tickSpacing) public override {
62        require(msg.sender == owner);
63        require(fee < 1000000);
64        // tick spacing is capped at 16384 to prevent the situation where tickSpacing is so large that
65        // TickBitmap#nextInitializedTickWithinOneWord overflows int24 container from a valid tick
66        // 16384 ticks represents a >5x price change with ticks of 1 bips
67        require(tickSpacing > 0 && tickSpacing < 16384);
68        require(feeAmountTickSpacing[fee] == 0);
69
70        feeAmountTickSpacing[fee] = tickSpacing;
71        emit FeeAmountEnabled(fee, tickSpacing);
72    }
73}

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Javascript + Typescript
53
8468
973
162
7333
1602
580

Tests to Code: 7333 / 1602 = 458 %