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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Ref Finance

85%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Ref Finance

Final score:85%
Date:29 Apr 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:85%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://ref.finance

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
Near
#QuestionAnswer
100%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.100%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
62%
10.80%
11.51%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
70%
16.70%
17.70%
97%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.100%
23.80%
24.100%
25.100%
88%
26.100%
27.No
28.Yes
Total:85%

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://guide.ref.finance/developers/contracts, 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 v2.ref-finance.near is used hundreds of 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/ref-finance

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%

At 64 commits but 41 branches, there is a good reference of development history documented.

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

Ref has multiple public and anonymous developers working on it. These are conveniently listed in one place for verification.

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

100%

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://guide.ref.finance/

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in this location. This is good architecture documentation.

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 good coverage of critical deployed contracts by software function documentation. The exchange and farming contracts are covered by good software function documentation. In addition, other contracts such as DAO / Vesting contracts are covered by their software function 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. Is it possible to trace the documented software to its implementation in the protocol's source code? (%)

Answer: 100%

There is perfect traceability between software documentation and implemented code. Users can immediately see the location of the public code in Ref's github repository which is conveniently linked.

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

62%

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

Answer: 80%

Code examples are in the Appendix at the end of this report.. As per the SLOC, there is 86% 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: 51%

Ref's code coverage stands at 51%, as identifed in their Jita audit.

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/ref-finance/ref-contracts#testing

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%

There is no test report documented by Ref.

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

Ref 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

Ref has documented a deployment to a testnet.

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

70%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 70%

Ref has been audited once, and this was post-launch.

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: 70%

Ref has a $250K active bug bounty. Not only does this cover their smart contracts but also their front-end, which we consider to be often as important and largely overlooked. They should be commended for this.

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

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.

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

Answer: 100%

Admin control information is easily found in Ref's contract documentation. An easy to understand table is documented.

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%

Each upgradeable contract is identified by Ref's contract documentation. The specificity of this documentation indicates good process.

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%

Ref contract ownership is clearly indicated in their contract documentation. Indeed, significant work has been put into identifying exact contract ownership in exact locations. This is commendable.

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 each of Ref's contracts in their contract documentation.

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%

This information is in easy to understand language.

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: 80%

Ref uses Guardians that function as their pause control. There is good and specific documentation relating to the processes in which the pause control is activated.

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%

Ref does not use a timelock and this is explained in their contract documentation. However, since some contracts are subject to DAO governance timeframes, some contracts are subject to a 24-48h delay in between proposal and going into effect.

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%

Ref does not use a formal timelock, and this is explained in their contract documentation.

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

88%

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%

Ref does not use an oracle, and this is stated in their GitBook. Instead, prices are dependent on pool conditions.

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: No

This protocol documents no front running mitigation techniques,

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 documents no flashloan attack countermeasures. Nevertheless, since flashloans are not currently a documented possibility on NEAR, this protocol does not need to do so.

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

1use near_sdk::borsh::{self, BorshDeserialize, BorshSerialize};
2use near_sdk::{AccountId, Balance};
3
4use crate::admin_fee::AdminFees;
5use crate::simple_pool::SimplePool;
6use crate::stable_swap::StableSwapPool;
7use crate::utils::SwapVolume;
8
9/// Generic Pool, providing wrapper around different implementations of swap pools.
10/// Allows to add new types of pools just by adding extra item in the enum without needing to migrate the storage.
11#[derive(BorshSerialize, BorshDeserialize)]
12pub enum Pool {
13    SimplePool(SimplePool),
14    StableSwapPool(StableSwapPool),
15}
16
17impl Pool {
18    /// Returns pool kind.
19    pub fn kind(&self) -> String {
20        match self {
21            Pool::SimplePool(_) => "SIMPLE_POOL".to_string(),
22            Pool::StableSwapPool(_) => "STABLE_SWAP".to_string(),
23        }
24    }
25
26    /// Returns which tokens are in the underlying pool.
27    pub fn tokens(&self) -> &[AccountId] {
28        match self {
29            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.tokens(),
30            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.tokens(),
31        }
32    }
33
34    /// Adds liquidity into underlying pool.
35    /// Updates amounts to amount kept in the pool.
36    pub fn add_liquidity(
37        &mut self,
38        sender_id: &AccountId,
39        amounts: &mut Vec<Balance>,
40    ) -> Balance {
41        match self {
42            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.add_liquidity(sender_id, amounts),
43            Pool::StableSwapPool(_) => unimplemented!(),
44        }
45    }
46
47    pub fn add_stable_liquidity(
48        &mut self,
49        sender_id: &AccountId,
50        amounts: &Vec<Balance>,
51        min_shares: Balance,
52        admin_fee: AdminFees,
53    ) -> Balance {
54        match self {
55            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
56            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.add_liquidity(sender_id, amounts, min_shares, &admin_fee),
57        }
58    }
59
60    /// Removes liquidity from underlying pool.
61    pub fn remove_liquidity(
62        &mut self,
63        sender_id: &AccountId,
64        shares: Balance,
65        min_amounts: Vec<Balance>,
66    ) -> Vec<Balance> {
67        match self {
68            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.remove_liquidity(sender_id, shares, min_amounts),
69            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => {
70                pool.remove_liquidity_by_shares(sender_id, shares, min_amounts)
71            }
72        }
73    }
74
75    /// Removes liquidity from underlying pool.
76    pub fn remove_liquidity_by_tokens(
77        &mut self,
78        sender_id: &AccountId,
79        amounts: Vec<Balance>,
80        max_burn_shares: Balance,
81        admin_fee: AdminFees,
82    ) -> Balance {
83        match self {
84            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
85            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => {
86                pool.remove_liquidity_by_tokens(sender_id, amounts, max_burn_shares, &admin_fee)
87            }
88        }
89    }
90
91    /// Returns how many tokens will one receive swapping given amount of token_in for token_out.
92    pub fn get_return(
93        &self,
94        token_in: &AccountId,
95        amount_in: Balance,
96        token_out: &AccountId,
97        fees: &AdminFees,
98    ) -> Balance {
99        match self {
100            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.get_return(token_in, amount_in, token_out),
101            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.get_return(token_in, amount_in, token_out, fees),
102        }
103    }
104
105    /// Return share decimal.
106    pub fn get_share_decimal(&self) -> u8 {
107        match self {
108            Pool::SimplePool(_) => 24,
109            Pool::StableSwapPool(_) => 18,
110        }
111    }
112
113    /// Returns given pool's total fee.
114    pub fn get_fee(&self) -> u32 {
115        match self {
116            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.get_fee(),
117            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.get_fee(),
118        }
119    }
120
121    /// Returns volumes of the given pool.
122    pub fn get_volumes(&self) -> Vec<SwapVolume> {
123        match self {
124            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.get_volumes(),
125            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.get_volumes(),
126        }
127    }
128
129    /// Returns given pool's share price in precision 1e8.
130    pub fn get_share_price(&self) -> u128 {
131        match self {
132            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
133            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.get_share_price(),
134        }
135    }
136
137    /// Swaps given number of token_in for token_out and returns received amount.
138    pub fn swap(
139        &mut self,
140        token_in: &AccountId,
141        amount_in: Balance,
142        token_out: &AccountId,
143        min_amount_out: Balance,
144        admin_fee: AdminFees,
145    ) -> Balance {
146        match self {
147            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => {
148                pool.swap(token_in, amount_in, token_out, min_amount_out, &admin_fee)
149            }
150            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => {
151                pool.swap(token_in, amount_in, token_out, min_amount_out, &admin_fee)
152            }
153        }
154    }
155
156    pub fn share_total_balance(&self) -> Balance {
157        match self {
158            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.share_total_balance(),
159            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.share_total_balance(),
160        }
161    }
162
163    pub fn share_balances(&self, account_id: &AccountId) -> Balance {
164        match self {
165            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.share_balance_of(account_id),
166            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.share_balance_of(account_id),
167        }
168    }
169
170    pub fn share_transfer(&mut self, sender_id: &AccountId, receiver_id: &AccountId, amount: u128) {
171        match self {
172            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.share_transfer(sender_id, receiver_id, amount),
173            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.share_transfer(sender_id, receiver_id, amount),
174        }
175    }
176
177    pub fn share_register(&mut self, account_id: &AccountId) {
178        match self {
179            Pool::SimplePool(pool) => pool.share_register(account_id),
180            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.share_register(account_id),
181        }
182    }
183
184    pub fn predict_add_stable_liquidity(
185        &self,
186        amounts: &Vec<Balance>,
187        fees: &AdminFees,
188    ) -> Balance {
189        match self {
190            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
191            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.predict_add_stable_liquidity(amounts, fees),
192        }
193    }
194
195    pub fn predict_remove_liquidity(
196        &self,
197        shares: Balance,
198    ) -> Vec<Balance> {
199        match self {
200            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
201            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.predict_remove_liquidity(shares),
202        }
203    }
204
205    pub fn predict_remove_liquidity_by_tokens(
206        &self,
207        amounts: &Vec<Balance>,
208        fees: &AdminFees,
209    ) -> Balance {
210        match self {
211            Pool::SimplePool(_) => unimplemented!(),
212            Pool::StableSwapPool(pool) => pool.predict_remove_liquidity_by_tokens(amounts, fees),
213        }
214    }

JavaScript Tests

Language
Files
Lines
Blanks
Comments
Testing Code
Deployed Code
Complexity
Rust
24
6958
711
630
4863
5617
329

Tests to Code: 4863 / 5617 = 87 %