compound-protocol VS openzeppelin-contracts

https://github.com/compound-finance/compound-protocol/tree/master/contracts/Governance .

I'm making an NFT crowdfunding protocol as a summer project and am using Compound Governance contract along with ERC20Votes to do so.

I highly recommend you do two things, first, try and get a feel for the behavior of smart contracts, there are tools that can help with this, like the ones at blockchain.ey.com - you can get a free personal use account and has a pretty convenient smart contract and token explorer tool for Solidity, you just drop in the code from the protocol’s GitHub (like recommended above) and bam. Here’s Compound’s timelock contract as an example: https://github.com/compound-finance/compound-protocol/blob/master/contracts/Timelock.sol

The Tranquil protocol smart contracts are forked from the Compound protocol with minimal changes. It is a deeply battle-tested and audited protocol with formal verification of its contracts.We plan to get audits for the Tranquil protocol as soon as possible.

Yep however I don't think I'd consider it to quite the same extreme. No doubt it was bad however proportionally to the size of the platform Cream's exploit was far more damaging. Like the rekt.news post mentions, it was more of a banking/spec error than an outright vulnerability. Your spec can't protect you if the loss is due to intended behaviour. There are ways to mitigate this however. The main way is by making your spec concise and clearly representable as a series of state transitions & operations or as a series of transformations.

The Compound Finance paper spec essentially just lists "this subsystem does these things" and then each function/operation is a list of preconditions, what actions are taken in what conditions, and the expected result. This isn't bad per se but it's not great either. Instead the paper spec really should be showing what transformation is being applied to the state, why we want that transformation applied, what properties must hold throughout the transformation, and then demonstrating that those properties hold.

Compare this (Compound):

https://github.com/compound-finance/compound-protocol/blob/m...

Provide alert for 10% or more change in Utilization Rate within a 60 minute window in a given pool.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-3.0 pragma solidity ^0.8.20; import "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/v5.0.0/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20.sol"; interface Sfs {     function register(address _recipient) external returns (uint256 tokenId); } contract ModeToken is ERC20 {     address feeReceiver = msg.sender;     constructor() ERC20("ModeTokenSFSTest", "SFST2") { //Example amount to mint our ERC20         _mint(msg.sender, 1000 10 * 18);   // This is the SFS contract address on testnet Sfs sfsContract = Sfs(0xBBd707815a7F7eb6897C7686274AFabd7B579Ff6); //Registers this contract and assigns the NFT //to the deployer of this contract sfsContract.register(msg.sender);     } }

Lets look the events of Open Zeppelin’s ERC20 token contract:

ERC-777 is difficult to implement properly, due to its susceptibility to different forms of attack(opens in a new tab). It is recommended to use ERC-20 instead. This page remains as a historical archive.