Pods Finance Ethereum Volatility Vault Audit #2

December 2nd, 2022

This security assessment was prepared by OpenZeppelin.

Table of Contents


From 2022-11-09
To 2022-11-18
Total Issues
23 (16 resolved, 1 partially resolved)
Critical Severity Issues
0 (0 resolved)
High Severity Issues
0 (0 resolved)
Medium Severity Issues
8 (4 resolved, 1 partially resolved)
Low Severity Issues
8 (6 resolved)
Notes & Additional Information
7 (6 resolved)


We audited the pods-finance/yield-contracts repository at the c4b401ce674c24798de5f9d02c82e466ee0a2600 commit.

In scope were the following contracts:

├── configuration
│   └── ConfigurationManager.sol
├── interfaces
│   ├── IConfigurationManager.sol
│   ├── ICurvePool.sol
│   └── IVault.sol
├── libs
│   └── CastUint.sol
├── mixins
│   └── Capped.sol
├── proxy
│   ├── ETHAdapter.sol
│   └── Migration.sol
└── vaults
    ├── BaseVault.sol
    └── STETHVault.sol

Update from Audit 1

A number of critical and high severity issues were found during the first audit of Pods Finance’s contracts. As a result, architectural changes were made to the contracts. This necessitated a second audit in order to fully evaluate the new architectural changes and re-evaluate existing code. The following is a high-level overview of the major changes that were made in response to the results of the first audit:

  • The custom ERC-4626 implementation was replaced with OpenZeppelin’s ERC-4626 implementation.
  • The underlying data structure of the DepositQueue was changed from an array to OpenZeppelin’s EnumerableMap.
  • The custom AuxMath library was replaced with OpenZeppelin’s Math library.

What follows is a system overview of the Pods Finance contracts, followed by notable privileged roles, trust assumptions, and our findings from the second audit.

System Overview

The Pods Finance staked Ethereum Volatility Vault is a one-click deposit investment product that features an options strategy to generate principal-protected returns when the ETH market is volatile. The underlying technique uses a portion of the yield from stETH assets to invest in the same number of call and put ETH options in an off-chain market. Profits from these investments are then returned to the vault and shared among participants who provided their yield to the investor.

The following diagram gives an overview of the system:

stETH Volatility Vault

The staked Ethereum Volatility Vault, stETHvv for short, is a tokenized vault on the Ethereum mainnet that implements the EIP-4626 standard. It integrates with the Lido stETH token as the single underlying asset. To participate in the investment strategy, users deposit the underlying asset into the vault in return for stETHvv vault shares.

The investment strategy is executed in rounds. At the start of each round, users can join a deposit queue where they will transfer underlying stETH assets to the vault. These assets will contribute yield for the vault; however, stETHvv vault shares will not be minted to a user until the queued deposit is processed after the round ends.

Users can withdraw their queued deposits before they are processed, but any stETH yield generated by the queued deposit will not be returned. Users that have already had their deposits processed can withdraw their stETHvv vault shares for the corresponding stETH equivalent, and will have a withdraw fee taken from the stETH amount.

When a round ends, only a portion of the stETH yield (not the principal) will be transferred to a centralized investor account, where the yield is manually used to participate in the off-chain option strategy. In the same transaction, the strategy profit denominated in stETH from the previous round will be transferred to the vault from the investor account.

After the round ends, deposits to and withdrawals from the vault are temporarily paused while processing of queued deposits is enabled. Anyone can process queued deposits by specifying an array of receiving addresses. Each processed deposit will mint new stETHvv vault shares to the receivers, as computed based on the total assets in the vault. Any unprocessed deposit will remain in the queue, which can be either processed or withdrawn in the next round.

When the next round starts, new deposits and withdrawals to the queue may resume, while queued deposits can no longer be processed.


Parameters such as the controller of the vault, the percentage of fees paid out to the vault, the cap on shares that can be issued, and migration-capable vaults are set in this contract. In the future, this contract may be used by different vaults of the protocol to query globalized parameters. One particularity of this contract is that parameters may be set through a function that allows storing any name-value pair for a specific target on a nested mapping. This allows more values to be added in the future without the need to replace the contract, but adds more complexity to managing contract storage.


In order to allow vault deposits to be made directly with ETH, this contract acts as an intermediary so that users can participate in the protocol without needing to perform the swap themselves. This contract swaps ETH for stETH through a Curve Finance pool. After the exchange, the ETHAdapter deposits the resulting tokens to the vault on behalf of the user within the same transaction. The ETHAdapter can also be used to withdraw a user’s stETH from the vault, exchange stETH for ETH via the Curve Finance pool, and transfer the ETH back to the user in a single transaction.

Future Migration

The stETHvv vault implementation intentionally lacks upgrade functionality, and instead opts to use a migration pattern. In the case of a migration, a stETHvv vault shareholder can call migrate() on the current vault contract to redeem their shares from this vault and join the deposit queue in the new vault. Users can also leverage the standalone migration contract to join the deposit queue in a new vault. In addition to the migrate() function available on the current vault, the migration contract also has a permit feature that allows users to perform the migration in one transaction.


In order to fulfill its value proposition of being a one-click deposit investment product, the stETHvv allows users to leverage the permit function on deposits and withdrawals. With this, users can sign a permit off-chain and then use the functions with permit integrations to perform the approval in the same transaction.

Privileged Roles

Some privileged roles exercise powers over the vault and periphery contracts:

  • Owner of the ConfigurationManager
    • Can add, remove, and modify system parameters such as the cap, the controller, and the vault fees.
    • Can allow any address to be a destination in case of a migration.
  • Controller of the stETHvv
    • After a previous round ends, the controller can start a new round anytime.
    • Anyone can start a new round if a week has passed since the last round ended. After a round starts, only the controller can end a round.
    • The controller receives fees collected on withdrawals.
  • Investor of the stETHvv
    • When a round ends, the investor account collects a portion of the yield from the deposited assets and transfers any profit obtained from the previous round of investment to the vault. The investor account holds the assets used for the off-chain option investment strategy.

Trust Assumptions

There are a few integrations within the system that contain implicit assumptions, which may hinder protocol functionality if broken:

  • Several vault calculations are performed using balances of a rebasing token.
    • In many of these places, an implicit assumption is made that the token will rebase positively. While Lido suggests they have yet to experience a negative rebase, this could occur if they were to experience an event, such as slashing, that lowered their stake.
  • ETHAdapter gathers the conversion rate for stETH/ETH from a curve pool and provides slippage as input.
    • The curve pool must maintain a certain level of liquidity for the ETHAdapter to work appropriately. Additionally, there is an assumption that slippage protection will be appropriately assessed before it is passed in as a parameter to the functions that exchange stETH and ETH. Any transaction constructed without appropriate slippage protection will be susceptible to MEV.
  • ETHAdapter makes external calls on a user-provided vault parameter.
    • Since the vault parameter is passed in as an argument, there is an implicit assumption that this input is trusted. Users should be aware of this potential phishing avenue, as transactions constructed containing a malicious vault parameter could lead to lost funds.
  • Permit functions consume signatures based on variable parameters.
    • There is an assumption that between the time an off-chain signature is gathered and when it is used, the conversion rate for vault shares and stETH has not changed. In the event that the conversion has updated, an off-chain signature may need to be regathered from the user for it to be consumed.


Here we present our findings.

Medium Severity

Funds held in ETHAdapter can be drained by anyone

The ETHAdapter contract is used as a proxy to allow users to interact with the vault through sending and receiving ETH instead of stETH. In the course of a normal withdrawal or redemption transaction, the ETHAdapter will pull the funds out of the vault before passing them onto the designated receiver. During the moment the ETHAdapter is holding the funds, it first converts all of its stETH to ETH, and then sends its entire ETH balance to the receiving address.

Consequently, the ETHAdapter sends its full balance to the receiver each time, meaning any ETH or stETH that is mistakenly sent to it can be drained by any user who performs a withdrawal or redemption on the ETHAdapter. This is exacerbated by the fact that the vault is passed in as a parameter, potentially allowing a user to perform withdrawals and redemptions without interacting with the actual stETH vault.

Consider transferring the exchanged balance from the Curve pool to the receiver instead of the entire balance of the ETHAdapter. Also consider implementing a rescue or sweep function to allow the recovery of funds that are accidentally sent to the ETHAdapter.

Update: Acknowledged, not resolved. Pods Finance team stated:

For now, we do not want to take action in case of funds sent by mistake to our contract. We will prioritize this issue in a future version.

Incorrect assetsOf calculation

The assetsOf function within BaseVault is used to calculate the combination of a user’s idle and withdrawable assets. This should depict the number of underlying assets a user could potentially receive from the vault at any given time. The formula it uses, however, incorrectly sums three separate items:

  • The number of assets the user’s entire share balance would currently convert to
  • The number of idle assets a user has in the queue
  • The number of assets the user’s entire share balance would convert to if the conversion rate factored in all idle assets

During testing, it was observed that the sum of these three items were at least double the amount of assets a user could actually receive from the protocol.

Consider changing the assetsOf calculation to match the behavior if a user were to perform both a redeem of their total balance of shares and a refund of all of their idle assets in the same transaction.

Update: Resolved in PR#98, with commit 602122efed209eed23f14b5eb906be1fab01cec5 being the last one added.

Incorrect recalculation of shares during deposit

When a user deposits to the STETHVault, the amount of shares they are expected to receive is recalculated after stETH is transferred from the depositor to the vault. Since the vault’s idle assets have not yet been updated, the transferred stETH is incorrectly included in the conversion calculation. This may cause the spentCap to be incorrectly updated and the Deposit event to emit a smaller value of shares than what will actually be issued when the deposit is processed.

Consider performing the previewDeposit and _spendCap calls after the totalIdleAssets have already been updated. This ensures any stETH that is transferred during the deposit will be correctly accounted for. Additionally, consider swapping the order of the totalIdleAssets decrement and _restoreCap logic in the refund function in BaseVault to accommodate for the changes in _deposit.

Update: Resolved in PR#118, with commit db0c86daa2d52d1f92e59ae852cade40be351b82 being the last one added.

Negative rebase of stETH could prevent a round from ending

When a round ends, the amount of underlying assets currently in the vault is subtracted from the amount of assets the vault contained in the previous round. This calculation assumes a positive yield, but the underlying asset stETH is able to rebase in both a positive and negative direction due to the potential for slashing. In the case where Lido is slashed, totalAssets can be less than lastRoundAssets. Consequently, the subtraction would cause an underflow, which would prevent the controller from being able to end the round until totalAssets is greater than lastRoundAssets.

Consider placing the logic that calculates and transfers any investment yield generated by the vault in an if statement that only occurs when totalAssets is greater than lastRoundAssets. This allows any yield generated from the options strategy to still be transferred to the vault and prevents the accrued interest arithmetic from reverting.

Update: Resolved in PR#100, with commit a756b4d8ead7fce109e9daf51c218eb952454487 being the last one added.

Non-standard ERC-4626 vault functionality

There are multiple locations in the ERC-4626 BaseVault that do not conform to ERC-4626 specifications:

Consider correcting the above issues to meet the ERC-4626 specifications, allowing future vault developers to expect certain protocol behaviors.

Update: Partially resolved in PR#132, with commit 87e7de33e0a7a699263624641305a8e06ec178b2 being the last one added. The issues regarding maxDepositmaxMintmaxWithdraw and maxRedeem have been resolved and these functions now return 0 when deposits or withdrawals are disabled. The previewWithdraw function does not include withdrawal fees. However, we note that there is ambiguity in how fees on withdrawal should be implemented according to EIP-4626, and that previewWithdraw does return the correct number of shares that would be burned in a withdraw call. Docstrings have been added to previewWithdraw and withdraw to inform integrators of the presence of withdrawal fees.

Phantom permit functions callable from child vault

In the previous audit, we described an issue where the BaseVault implements a mintWithPermit and depositWithPermit function, even though the vault’s underlying asset is intended to be stETH, which does not have a permit function. The Pods Finance team acknowledged this issue and explained that they kept this functionality because they may create other vaults in the future with underlying assets that do contain permit functions.

In this case, consider overriding the functions that call permit in the STETHVault to explicitly revert when called. In the STETHVault contract, the calls to mintWithPermit and depositWithPermit will currently have their transaction reverted due to the stETH contract’s fallback function. However, this both provides a potentially inaccurate error message and is subject to different behavior if the stETH contract undergoes an upgrade. Further, tokens containing phantom permit functions are known to exist, which would not revert on failure. Setting a precedent of explicitly reverting when calling unsupported permit functions can help ensure future vaults do not suffer from calling phantom permits on their underlying assets.

Update: Resolved in PR#123, with commit fd3ca22cedc414f9e6f5fbed34ad725ca509bff2 being the last one added.

Refunds will be over-credited in a negative yield event

Deposits added to the queue are point-in-time stETH balance amounts. The stETH token rebases to account for yield, and in the event of slashing, may be subject to a negative yield. In the event that a stETH token rebase is negative between the time a user deposits and calls for a refund, the vault will over credit the user by the rebase difference.

Consider handling the deposits in the queue in stETH share amounts to account for rebase changes on refunds.

Update: Acknowledged, not resolved. Pods Finance team stated:

Although we agree with the issue, we won’t prioritize it right now. It would require us to implement a secondary share queue system that would require few parts of the code to change. We will prioritize this issue in a future version.

Vault can be placed back into vulnerable low supply state

The BaseVault contract inherits an issue common to ERC-4626 implementations known as the donation attack. When shares are minted to users, they are calculated by multiplying the deposited assets by a ratio of the existing shares to current assets. The result of this calculation is then rounded down, following the ERC specifications. The problem arises when the value of totalAssets is manipulated to induce unfavorable rounding for new users depositing into the vault at the benefit of users who already own shares of the vault. Since totalAssets is calculated using the balance of underlying assets, it can be manipulated via direct transfers or donations of stETH to the vault. The most extreme example of this attack could occur when a user is the first to enter the vault, because when supply is sufficiently low, the capital requirement to perform an economically beneficial donation attack is also low.

The Pods Finance team is aware of this issue and has taken measures to make the attack more difficult to execute, such as by creating a minimum initial deposit requirement. While this does successfully enforce a minimum initial deposit for the first round, it does not prevent the total supply of shares from falling below the safety threshold throughout the life of the vault. For example, if an early user put forth the minimum initial deposit and then the rest of the queue held dust amounts, the same user could withdraw far below the minimum initial deposit amount in the next round and the vault would be back in a vulnerable state.

Consider taking steps to ensure the supply of vault shares does not go below the minimum initial deposit amount. One way to do this would be for the Pods Finance team to contribute their own initial deposit to the vault that they can guarantee will not be withdrawn. Discussions around other techniques used to protect from this attack can be seen in issue 3706 of the openzeppelin-contracts repository.

Update: Acknowledged, will resolve. Pods Finance team stated:

Pods Finance will follow the recommendations and will contribute their own initial deposit to the vault that they can guarantee will not be withdrawn.

Low Severity

Magic numbers are used

Although constants are generally used correctly throughout the codebase, there are a few occurrences of literal values being used with unexplained meaning inside of ETHAdapter. For example, the following blocks use hardcoded values:

  • In the constructor, the pool’s coins function is called with arguments 0 and 1.
  • In the functions convertToETH and convertToSTETH, the pool’s get_dy function is called with arguments 0 and 1 with no explanation.
  • In the deposit function, the pool’s exchange function is called with arguments 0 and 1 without explanation.

To improve the code’s readability and facilitate refactoring, consider defining a constant for every magic number, giving it a clear and self-explanatory name. Consider adding an inline comment explaining how the magic numbers are calculated or why they are chosen for complex values.

Update: Resolved in PR#103, with commit 87e7de33e0a7a699263624641305a8e06ec178b2 being the last one added.

Misplaced totalAssets function implementation

As part of the STETHVault contract implementation, the totalAssets function is overridden and updated in order to account for the assets that have been transferred to the vault contract but have not been processed yet. However, the accounting for idle assets within a vault is primarily implemented in the BaseVault contract. Consequently, if a vault were to inherit the BaseVault contract and not override totalAssets, any calculation involving totalAssets would most likely be off due to the default implementation of totalAssets not taking into account idle assets.

Consider moving the implementation of totalAssets to the BaseVault contract. totalAssets can additionally be marked virtual so contracts that inherit BaseVault can optionally choose to implement their own functionality.

Update: Resolved in PR#117, with commit 2a82f1126c14c713b19a08cdf32690e52bb4c43d being the last one added.

Missing docstrings

Throughout the codebase, there are several parts that do not have docstrings. For instance:

This hinders reviewers’ understanding of the code’s intention, which is fundamental to correctly assess not only security but also correctness. Additionally, docstrings improve readability and maintenance.

Consider thoroughly inserting documentation above each contract, interface, library, function, state variable, event, and custom error. Functions implementing sensitive functionality, even if not public, should be clearly documented as well. When writing docstrings, consider following the Ethereum Natural Specification Format (NatSpec).

Update: Resolved in PR#122, with commit 32df444b20be010b5f1da7f42a69fcbeec61fdda being the last one added.

Missing ConfigurationManager check during vault initialization

As part of the constructor in the BaseVault contract, the configuration state variable is set. However, there is no check to ensure the passed-in ConfigurationManager address instance has the VAULT_CONTROLLER parameter set for the vault contract that is being created. Having the VAULT_CONTROLLER parameter be the default value of the zero address for the new vault could result in a loss of the fee taken as part of the withdraw control flow, since that fee will be transferred to the VAULT_CONTROLLER address designated by the ConfigurationManager.

Consider adding a check in the constructor of the BaseVault contract to ensure calling getParameter with the address of the vault being created, and VAULT_CONTROLLER does not return the zero address.

Update: Acknowledged, not resolved. Pods Finance team stated:

Instead of enforcing it at the code level, that would require us to deploy the vault using CREATE2 in order to know in advance the vault address, we will monitor the VAULT_CONTROLLER variable to make sure that it was set after the deploy.

Share price calculations should never result in a zero value

The share price represents the amount of stETH needed to mint one vault share. When the number of vault shares that has been minted thus far is zero, the share price should simply be the ratio of the underlying asset’s decimals to the vault’s decimals. There were multiple share price calculations in the STETHVault contract that incorrectly returned zero in this scenario:

Consider using the convertToAssets function that is inherited from OpenZeppelin’s ERC-4626 contract instead of the manual calculations, as it contains logic to handle this edge case. Additionally, when instantiating lastSharePrice in the _afterRoundStart function, consider setting the numerator to 10 ** underlying asset decimals and the denominator to 10 ** sharePriceDecimals when the number of vault shares is zero.

Update: Resolved in PR#109, with commit 88e0b18fa497ce86194ab5ac8b9cc346ecfb3b75 being the last one added.

The sharePrice function should not revert

The sharePrice function in the STETHVault contract calculates the amount of stETH needed in order to mint one vault share. However, the calculation does not take into account that totalSupply can return zero when no deposits have been made to the vault and therefore no vault shares have been minted. Consequently, when the totalSupply function returns zero the mulDiv operation will revert.

Consider calling convertToAssets(10**sharePriceDecimals) in the sharePrice function instead of using the manual calculation, as convertToAssets handles the zero shares edge case.

Update: Resolved in PR#104, with commit 9264f9dc5a5676da381dc6e86768971ffd5415d8 being the last one added.

spentCap can be skewed due to rebasing tokens

spentCap is a local state variable in the Capped contract that is used to indicate how many shares have been minted. This variable is first updated when a user deposits. However, shares are not issued for a user until their deposit has been processed. The share conversion rate is subject to change during that time-frame due to stETH being a rebasing token. Therefore, when _restoreCap is called during a withdraw, the number of shares accounted for in spentCap may differ from the number of shares that were actually issued for the same deposit. This skew can accumulate over time, to the point where a vault could mistakenly restrict vault deposits due to the spentCap incorrectly reaching the available cap limit.

Consider adding spentCap to the ConfigurationManager as a parameter, and updating calculations in Capped to add and subtract to that value instead of using a local state variable. This would allow the owner of the ConfigurationManager contract to adjust spentCap if the skew becomes too large.

Update: Acknowledged, not resolved. Pods Finance team stated:

The cap is a temporary feature. As of now, it is possible to workaround this issue and increase the cap through the ConfigurationManager if needed.

Use of deprecated function for setting token allowances

Throughout the codebase there were multiple locations where the deprecated safeApprove function was used to set allowances:

If in any of these locations an allowance is carried over for more than the duration of a transaction, safeApprove may revert in subsequent transactions. Consider replacing the instances of safeApprove with the recommended safeIncreaseAllowance or safeDecreaseAllowance instead.

Update: Resolved in PR#105, with commit 7e6bdbcb3d1fff657c81810750521fa0278e4a07 being the last one added.

Notes & Additional Information

Inconsistent use of named return variables

Named return variables are a way to declare variables that are meant to be used inside a function body and returned at the end of the function. This is an alternative to the explicit return statement to provide function outputs.

Throughout the codebase, there are instances of inconsistent use of named return variables:

  • The deposit function in ETHAdapter has a named return variable declared that is not used.
  • The startRound function in IVault declares a named return variable, while its implementation in BaseVault does not.
  • The handleMigration function in IVault declares a named return variable, while its implementation in BaseVault does not.

Consider improving consistency and either using or removing any unused named return variables.

Update: Resolved in PR#110, with commit f2459432bbdc423c15c501cd277d72ae4fdefd70 being the last one added.

Inflexible initial deposit

The current minimum initial deposit is defined as 10**decimals of the underlying token. This strategy may be inflexible for certain edge-case tokens. For example, a vault that has an underlying asset of wBTC would require an initial deposit of $16,600 at today’s market price. Additionally, if a vault were to have an underlying asset with very few decimals, it is possible that the capital requirement intended to prevent a donation attack may be insufficient.

If the Pods Finance team ever intends to offer vaults with wBTC or other edge case tokens as underlying assets, consider allowing the minimum initial deposit to be configurable at deployment.

Update: Acknowledged, not resolved. Pods Finance team stated:

As stated above, Pods Finance will contribute their own initial deposit to the vault that they can guarantee will not be withdrawn. Depositing one whole wBTC won’t be a problem. For the small decimals tokens, Pods Finance team will deposit an initial deposit bigger than the minimum.

Lack of indexed parameters

The VaultAllowanceSet event in IConigurationManager does not have the newVault parameter indexed.

Consider indexing event parameters to avoid hindering the task of off-chain services searching and filtering for specific events.

Update: Resolved in PR#105, with commit 7e6bdbcb3d1fff657c81810750521fa0278e4a07 being the last one added.

Lack of zero address checks

Throughout the codebase, there are several functions where the zero address could be passed as an argument but is not explicitly checked:

Zero address checks prevent operations from potentially occurring on the zero address, and allows developers to return clear error messages instead of having a function fail in a less-obvious way.

Consider adding zero address checks to the above functions.

Update: Resolved in PR#124 and PR#129, with commits bb7be233253bb96589486cc700a9889f716e34a1 and 771aa5bf7453405d91310035be65eab698ccfdb1 being the last ones added.

Mismatched event parameters

Multiple event definitions contain uint256 parameters for roundId, but the value emitted is a uint32:

  • RoundStarted in IVault declares a uint256 parameter for roundId but emits the uint32 vaultState.currentRoundId.
  • RoundEnded in IVault declares a uint256 parameter for roundId but emits the uint32 vaultState.currentRoundId.
  • DepositProcessed in IVault declares a uint256 parameter for roundId but emits the uint32 vaultState.currentRoundId.
  • DepositRefunded in IVault declares a uint256 parameter for roundId but emits the uint32 vaultState.currentRoundId.

For clearer code and potential gas savings, consider aligning variable types within event definitions and event emissions.

Update: Resolved in PR#113, with commit 135c912b843b64937f9eb4069e1c0fc8b312cd80 being the last one added.

Non-explicit imports are used

Non-explicit imports are used inside the codebase, which reduces code readability and could lead to conflicts between the names defined locally and the ones imported. This is especially important if many contracts are defined within the same Solidity files or the inheritance chains are long.

Within ConfigurationManager, global imports are being used. For instance:

Following the principle that clearer code is better code, consider using named import syntax (import {A, B, C} from "X") to explicitly declare which contracts are being imported.

Update: Resolved in PR#102, with commit b059e07c90ae62b4a37ffd596ba05bcd997a16b8 being the last one added.

Use of uint32 for round timestamp limits vault lifetime

The BaseVault keeps track of when rounds end by placing the current block.timestamp inside of a uint32 value. This value is then used to determine whether a round can begin. When block.timestamp produces a number near the max uint32 value, the vault will lose the ability to end and start rounds due to integer overflow. Currently this may occur within approximately 83 years.

Consider expanding the round timestamp to a uint40 or larger to drastically increase the shelf life of the BaseVault.

Update: Resolved in PR#107, with commit d26b0ee274f4cec28fad2a9f0df3e340ee8fc887 being the last one added.


No critical or high severity issues were found in this second audit. Several medium severity issues were discovered, many of which stemmed from complications related to directly integrating with the rebasable stETH token. Overall, the codebase shows a marked improvement from the first audit. The Pods Finance team was able to leverage pre-existing OpenZeppelin contract implementations and other libraries as part of their fixes for the first audit, which helped reduce the attack surface of their contracts. Additional recommendations have been proposed to further reduce the attack surface of the contracts.


Monitoring Recommendation

While audits help in identifying code-level issues in the current implementation and potentially the code deployed to production, we encourage the Pods Finance team to consider incorporating monitoring activities in the production environment. Ongoing monitoring of deployed contracts helps in identifying potential threats and issues that may affect the protocol. With the goal of providing a complete security assessment, we want to raise several actions addressing trust assumptions and out-of-scope components that may benefit from on-chain monitoring:

  • Minimum balance invariant of the stETHvv contract: consider monitoring the underlying balance of stETH in the vault contract to ensure it is always greater than or equal to the MIN_INITIAL_ASSETS balance. This can be done on a per-block basis by checking the stETH balance of the vault at a previous block number with the stETH balance of the vault at the most recent block number.
  • Low liquidity in the ETH/stETH Curve pool: consider monitoring the liquidity in the ETH/stETH Curve pool to ensure that the ETHAdapter contract does not encounter a situation where exchanges are failing or large slippage is occurring due to low liquidity in the corresponding Curve pool.
  • Negative rebase event of stETH due to the potential for Lido to be slashed: consider monitoring the balance of stETH in the stETHvv contract along with WithdrawEndRoundData, and DepositRefunded events. The respective events indicate when stETH is transferred from the vault. If the balance of the contract were to decrease not as a direct result of any of the aforementioned events, it could be an indication of a negative stETH rebase event.
  • Privileged role activities such as those performed by the Owner of the ConfigurationManager contract, the controller of the vault, and the investor of the vault: consider monitoring events related, but not limited to, ownership changes, vault configuration modifications, and transfers initiated by the investor address to somewhere other than the vault as these may signal private key compromise of a privileged role.

Additionally, the team may wish to explore options for monitoring Lido node status so that they may be able to predict if a negative stETH rebase will occur in the near future.