| protocol | name of the protocol appended by the version if multiple versions exist (use an '-' and no whitespace) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| website | https://... | |||||
| x | https://x.com/projecthandle | |||||
| github | ||||||
| defillama_slug |
|
|||||
| chain | the name of the chain on which the protocol is deployed | |||||
| stage | 0 | |||||
| reasons |
|
|||||
| risks |
|
|||||
| author |
|
|||||
| submission_date | 1970-01-01 | |||||
| publish_date | 1970-01-01 | |||||
| update_date | 1970-01-01 |
Add a summary of the protocols. What is it? What does it do? etc.
See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#chain for more guidance.
In the upgradability section & risk we address bytecode upgrades and parameter changes that are permissioned.
We wrote a section explaining the Upgradeability Risk in our framework here: See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#upgradability
For some practical guidance follow this steps. It will help you in writing a nice report:
- Run the permission scanner
- Fill in all the permissioned functions in the table (
## Permissions)- Remember: Each function with a permission needs to be considered when determining the risk on Upgradability
- Get a mechanistic and precise understanding of each permissioned function
- Assess impact for each function, look out for
- loss/blocking of user funds
- loss of unclaimed yield
- change expected behavior significantly (blacklisting/kyc/fees/...)
- Write the impact column based on your understanding
- A good tipp when writing the impact column below, think of least 2,3 sentences:
- First sentence: what it does technically, e.g "It assigns a new address to the owner variable"
- Second: what is the impact within the system, e.g "The owner is permissioned to raise fees"
- Third: Imagine faulty or malicious action, e.g "The malicious owner could raise fees to 100%, redirecting all future yield.
- Summarise and abstract away technical details in this section here (
## Upgradeability)
For some guidance:
In the upgradability section & risk we address bytecode upgrades and parameter changes that are permissioned.
This steps help you write a nice report:
- Run the permission scanner
- Fill in all the permissioned functions in the table (
## Permissions)- Remember: Each function with a permission needs to be considered when determining the risk on Upgradability
- Get a mechanistic and precise understanding of each permissioned function
- Assess impact for each function, look out for
- loss/blocking of user funds
- loss of unclaimed yield
- change expected behavior significantly (blacklisting/kyc/fees/...)
- Write the impact column based on your understanding
- A good tipp when writing the impact column below, think of least 2,3 sentences:
- First sentence: what it does technically, e.g "It assigns a new address to the owner variable"
- Second: what is the impact within the system, e.g "The owner is permissioned to raise fees"
- Third: Imagine faulty or malicious action, e.g "The malicious owner could raise fees to 100%, redirecting all future yield.
- Summarise and abstract away technical details in this section here (
## Upgradeability)
See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#autonomy for more guidance.
See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#exit-window for more guidance.
See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#accessibility for more guidance.
| Contract Name | Address |
|---|---|
| contract 1 | 0x123 |
| contract 2 | 0x456 |
| Name | Account | Type |
|---|---|---|
| name | address | Multisig x/y |
| Contract | Function | Impact | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract name | functionname | description | owner of the permission |
insert text
insert text
See http://defiscan.info/learn-more#security-council-requirements for guidance.
change ✅ or ❌ accordingly
| ✅ /❌ | Requirement |
|---|---|
| ❌ | At least 7 signers |
| ❌ | At least 51% threshold |
| ❌ | At least 50% non-team signers |
| ❌ | Signers are publicly announced (with name or pseudonym) |