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If you notice some outdated information please let us know!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

Marinade

70%

Process Quality Review (0.8)

Marinade

Final score:70%
Date:06 May 2022
Audit Process:version 0.8
Author:Nick
PQR Score:70%

PASS

Protocol Website:https://marinade.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
Solana
#QuestionAnswer
89%
1.100%
2.100%
3.Yes
4.0%
5.100
100%
6.Yes
7.Yes
8.100%
9.100%
20%
10.0%
11.0%
12.Yes
13.0%
14.No
15.Yes
79%
16.80%
17.70%
53%
18.100%
19.100%
20.100%
21.100%
22.30%
23.0%
24.0%
25.0%
100%
26.100%
27.Yes
28.Yes
Total:70%

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

89%

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.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addresses, 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 MainState is used over 10 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/marinade-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: 0%

At 7 commits in the main program repository, there is limited developer 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

Multiple public team members could be found on their Twitter, and they confirm their contributions to Marinade.

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://docs.marinade.finance/

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

Answer: Yes

This protocol's software architecture is documented in Marinade's GitBook.

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.

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 explicit traceability between software documentation and implemented code. Users can see exactly which contract is referenced in the documentation.

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

20%

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

Answer: 0%

There is no testing documented in Marinade's GitHub repository.

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: 0%

No testing for code coverage was documented in Marinade's repository.

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/marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program/tree/main/scripts

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%

No test report is documented in Marinade's repository.

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

Marinade has not undergone 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

This protocol has documented deployment to a testnet. Marinade uses Solana's Devnet.

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

79%

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

16. Is the protocol sufficiently audited? (%)

Answer: 80%

Marinade has undergone 2 formal audits and 1 code review. Each of these were performed post-deployment. This was conducted after deployment. Kudelski Security and Ackee Blockchain conducted these audits. Neodyme conducted a code review.

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%

This protocol offers an active bug bounty of $250K

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

53%

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 was clearly documented at this location. This was quick to find.

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%

The relevant contracts are clearly identified as immutable / upgradeable, as identified 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%

Ownership is clearly indicated in this location. Various multisigs are in charge of Marinade's separate functions.

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 well identified in relevant contracts. Their documentation clearly identifies what parameters can be adjusted and under what circumstances these changes can be triggered.

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: 30%

This information is is in software specific language. Non-technical users may struggle to comprehend who is in control of the contracts.

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: 0%

Marinade's pause control is not documented or explained.

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: 0%

Marinade has no timelock documentation.

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: 0%

Marinade has no timelock 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

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.

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

Answer: 100%

Marinade's oracle source is well documented at this location. The contracts dependent are identified. There is good relevant software function documentation. It uses Pyth.

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

This protocol documents front running mitigation techniques at this location. This is primarily in the form of specifying an interest in any bug relating to MEV applicable to Marinade.

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 some flashloan countermeasures at this location. As with MEV, this is in the form of stated interest in flashloan exploits being disclosed via bug bounty.

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 crate::{checks::check_address, list::List, located::Located, State, ID};
2use anchor_lang::prelude::*;
3use anchor_lang::solana_program::clock::Epoch;
4
5pub mod deactivate_stake;
6pub mod deposit_stake_account;
7pub mod emergency_unstake;
8pub mod merge;
9pub mod stake_reserve;
10
11#[derive(Clone, Copy, Debug, Default, PartialEq, AnchorSerialize, AnchorDeserialize)]
12pub struct StakeRecord {
13    pub stake_account: Pubkey,
14    pub last_update_delegated_lamports: u64,
15    pub last_update_epoch: u64,
16    pub is_emergency_unstaking: u8, // 1 for cooling down after emergency unstake, 0 otherwise
17}
18
19impl StakeRecord {
20    pub const DISCRIMINATOR: &'static [u8; 8] = b"staker__";
21
22    pub fn new(stake_account: &Pubkey, delegated_lamports: u64, clock: &Clock) -> Self {
23        Self {
24            stake_account: *stake_account,
25            last_update_delegated_lamports: delegated_lamports,
26            last_update_epoch: clock.epoch,
27            is_emergency_unstaking: 0,
28        }
29    }
30}
31
32#[derive(Clone, AnchorSerialize, AnchorDeserialize, Debug)]
33pub struct StakeSystem {
34    pub stake_list: List,
35    //pub last_update_epoch: u64,
36    //pub updated_during_last_epoch: u32,
37    pub delayed_unstake_cooling_down: u64,
38    pub stake_deposit_bump_seed: u8,
39    pub stake_withdraw_bump_seed: u8,
40
41    /// set by admin, how much slots before the end of the epoch, stake-delta can start
42    pub slots_for_stake_delta: u64,
43    /// Marks the start of stake-delta operations, meaning that if somebody starts a delayed-unstake ticket
44    /// after this var is set with epoch_num the ticket will have epoch_created = current_epoch+1
45    /// (the user must wait one more epoch, because their unstake-delta will be execute in this epoch)
46    pub last_stake_delta_epoch: u64,
47    pub min_stake: u64, // Minimal stake account delegation
48    /// can be set by validator-manager-auth to allow a second run of stake-delta to stake late stakers in the last minute of the epoch
49    /// so we maximize user's rewards
50    pub extra_stake_delta_runs: u32,
51}
52
53impl StakeSystem {
54    pub const STAKE_WITHDRAW_SEED: &'static [u8] = b"withdraw";
55    pub const STAKE_DEPOSIT_SEED: &'static [u8] = b"deposit";
56
57    pub fn bytes_for_list(count: u32, additional_record_space: u32) -> u32 {
58        List::bytes_for(
59            StakeRecord::default().try_to_vec().unwrap().len() as u32 + additional_record_space,
60            count,
61        )
62    }
63
64    /*
65    pub fn list_capacity(account_len: usize) -> u32 {
66        List::<StakeDiscriminator, StakeRecord, u32>::capacity_of(
67            StakeRecord::default().try_to_vec().unwrap().len() as u32,
68            account_len,
69        )
70    }*/
71
72    pub fn find_stake_withdraw_authority(state: &Pubkey) -> (Pubkey, u8) {
73        Pubkey::find_program_address(&[&state.to_bytes()[..32], Self::STAKE_WITHDRAW_SEED], &ID)
74    }
75
76    pub fn find_stake_deposit_authority(state: &Pubkey) -> (Pubkey, u8) {
77        Pubkey::find_program_address(&[&state.to_bytes()[..32], Self::STAKE_DEPOSIT_SEED], &ID)
78    }
79
80    pub fn new(
81        state: &Pubkey,
82        stake_list_account: Pubkey,
83        stake_list_data: &mut [u8],
84        slots_for_stake_delta: u64,
85        min_stake: u64,
86        extra_stake_delta_runs: u32,
87        additional_record_space: u32,
88    ) -> Result<Self, ProgramError> {
89        let stake_list = List::new(
90            StakeRecord::DISCRIMINATOR,
91            StakeRecord::default().try_to_vec().unwrap().len() as u32 + additional_record_space,
92            stake_list_account,
93            stake_list_data,
94            "stake_list",
95        )?;
96
97        Ok(Self {
98            stake_list,
99            delayed_unstake_cooling_down: 0,
100            stake_deposit_bump_seed: Self::find_stake_deposit_authority(state).1,
101            stake_withdraw_bump_seed: Self::find_stake_withdraw_authority(state).1,
102            slots_for_stake_delta,
103            last_stake_delta_epoch: Epoch::MAX, // never
104            min_stake,
105            extra_stake_delta_runs,
106        })
107    }
108
109    pub fn stake_list_address(&self) -> &Pubkey {
110        &self.stake_list.account
111    }
112
113    pub fn stake_count(&self) -> u32 {
114        self.stake_list.len()
115    }
116
117    pub fn stake_list_capacity(&self, stake_list_len: usize) -> Result<u32, ProgramError> {
118        self.stake_list.capacity(stake_list_len)
119    }
120
121    pub fn stake_record_size(&self) -> u32 {
122        self.stake_list.item_size()
123    }
124
125    pub fn add(
126        &mut self,
127        stake_list_data: &mut [u8],
128        stake_account: &Pubkey,
129        delegated_lamports: u64,
130        clock: &Clock,
131    ) -> ProgramResult {
132        self.stake_list.push(
133            stake_list_data,
134            StakeRecord::new(stake_account, delegated_lamports, clock),
135            "stake_list",
136        )?;
137        Ok(())
138    }
139
140    pub fn get(&self, stake_list_data: &[u8], index: u32) -> Result<StakeRecord, ProgramError> {
141        self.stake_list.get(stake_list_data, index, "stake_list")
142    }
143
144    pub fn set(&self, stake_list_data: &mut [u8], index: u32, stake: StakeRecord) -> ProgramResult {
145        self.stake_list
146            .set(stake_list_data, index, stake, "stake_list")
147    }
148    pub fn remove(&mut self, stake_list_data: &mut [u8], index: u32) -> ProgramResult {
149        self.stake_list.remove(stake_list_data, index, "stake_list")
150    }
151
152    pub fn check_stake_list<'info>(&self, stake_list: &AccountInfo<'info>) -> ProgramResult {
153        check_address(stake_list.key, self.stake_list_address(), "stake_list")?;
154        if &stake_list.data.borrow().as_ref()[0..8] != StakeRecord::DISCRIMINATOR {
155            msg!("Wrong stake list account discriminator");
156            return Err(ProgramError::InvalidAccountData);
157        }
158        Ok(())
159    }
160}
161
162pub trait StakeSystemHelpers {
163    fn stake_withdraw_authority(&self) -> Pubkey;
164    fn with_stake_withdraw_authority_seeds<R, F: FnOnce(&[&[u8]]) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> R;
165    fn check_stake_withdraw_authority(&self, stake_withdraw_authority: &Pubkey) -> ProgramResult;
166
167    fn stake_deposit_authority(&self) -> Pubkey;
168    fn with_stake_deposit_authority_seeds<R, F: FnOnce(&[&[u8]]) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> R;
169    fn check_stake_deposit_authority(&self, stake_deposit_authority: &Pubkey) -> ProgramResult;
170}
171
172impl<T> StakeSystemHelpers for T
173where
174    T: Located<State>,
175{
176    fn stake_withdraw_authority(&self) -> Pubkey {
177        self.with_stake_withdraw_authority_seeds(|seeds| {
178            Pubkey::create_program_address(seeds, &ID).unwrap()
179        })
180    }
181
182    fn with_stake_withdraw_authority_seeds<R, F: FnOnce(&[&[u8]]) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> R {
183        f(&[
184            &self.key().to_bytes()[..32],
185            StakeSystem::STAKE_WITHDRAW_SEED,
186            &[self.as_ref().stake_system.stake_withdraw_bump_seed],
187        ])
188    }
189
190    fn check_stake_withdraw_authority(&self, stake_withdraw_authority: &Pubkey) -> ProgramResult {
191        check_address(
192            stake_withdraw_authority,
193            &self.stake_withdraw_authority(),
194            "stake_withdraw_authority",
195        )
196    }
197
198    fn stake_deposit_authority(&self) -> Pubkey {
199        self.with_stake_deposit_authority_seeds(|seeds| {
200            Pubkey::create_program_address(seeds, &ID).unwrap()
201        })
202    }
203
204    fn with_stake_deposit_authority_seeds<R, F: FnOnce(&[&[u8]]) -> R>(&self, f: F) -> R {
205        f(&[
206            &self.key().to_bytes()[..32],
207            StakeSystem::STAKE_DEPOSIT_SEED,
208            &[self.as_ref().stake_system.stake_deposit_bump_seed],
209        ])
210    }
211
212    fn check_stake_deposit_authority(&self, stake_deposit_authority: &Pubkey) -> ProgramResult {
213        check_address(
214            stake_deposit_authority,
215            &self.stake_deposit_authority(),
216            "stake_deposit_authority",
217        )
218    }
219}
N/A