Documentation Index
Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://docs.superearn.io/llms.txt
Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.
While the categories below illustrate core evaluation angles, the assessment is not limited to these items. Additional dimensions may be considered based on the protocol’s structure, documentation, and risk profile.
Area 1: Technical Security
Evaluates how robust the code is and how well the protocol is designed to withstand external attacks.
| Evaluation Item | Checklist / Points to Verify | Importance |
|---|
| Audit | - Which firm conducted the audit? (e.g. top-tier firms preferred)
- How many audits have been conducted? (minimum of 2 recommended)
- What were the findings, and were all Critical/High issues resolved?
- Is the audit report publicly available?
| Highest |
| Bug Bounty Program | - Is there an ongoing bug bounty program on platforms like Immunefi or HackerOne?
- Is the bounty size appropriate (high rewards relative to TVL indicate strong security confidence)?
| High |
| Track Record | - How long has the protocol been live on mainnet without major issues?
- Is there any history of hacks or fund losses and, if so, how were they handled?
| High |
| Admin Key Structure | - Do admin keys exist that can alter core protocol settings?
- If yes, are they managed via multisig, and who are the signers?
| High |
| Dependencies | - Which oracle is used (e.g., Chainlink, Pyth – reliable providers)? What are the price-oracle mechanisms?
- If the protocol is built on another protocol, is the base layer considered secure?
| Medium |
| Dependency Graph Depth | - Does the protocol rely on material 2nd- or 3rd-order dependencies such as underlying protocols, vaults, bridges, collateral assets, or rehypothecation layers?
- Are critical upstream dependencies sufficiently transparent, audited, and monitorable?
- Could a lower-layer failure materially affect strategy NAV, liquidity, or redemption availability?
| High |
| Oracle Risk Profile | - Are oracle sources, update cadence, deviation thresholds, and fallback mechanisms clearly documented?
- Could oracle lag or manually attested pricing create a false-solvency window during market stress?
- For NAV-style or delayed price feeds, are conservative valuation and stale-price controls in place?
| High |
| Code Disclosure & Documentation | - Is the code fully open-sourced on GitHub?
- Is developer documentation complete and well maintained?
| Medium |
| Cross-chain Security (bridged tokens only) | - Which bridging stack is used, and is the verifier set a threshold configuration (avoid 1-of-1)?
- Are there rate limits at both the transport layer (per-hour cap) and the mint layer (per-block cap), with a tested kill-switch?
| Highest |
Area 2: Economic Security
Evaluates whether the protocol’s yield sources, tokenomics, and risk mechanisms are sustainable and resilient even under extreme market conditions.
| Evaluation Item | Checklist / Points to Verify | Importance |
|---|
| Liquidity | - For lending protocols (especially for curators), is the collateral high-quality and reliable?
- For lending protocols: Is utilization rate appropriate? (if utilization is consistently above 85–90%, withdrawals may be delayed or blocked, so real-time monitoring is required)
- For DEX/AMM: Is pool TVL sufficient to handle expected deposits and withdrawals?
- For RWA or private credit: Are there explicit lock-up periods or redemption cycles (for example, 30-day lockup, weekly redemption)?
- Are there utilization, redemption-queue, or liquidity-ceiling conditions that could delay or block withdrawals under stress?
- Do major incentives have a known expiry date, and should the strategy be re-evaluated before expiry?
- Has the protocol handled large withdrawal events smoothly in the past?
| Highest |
| Yield Source Consistency | - Where does the yield come from: organic fees, borrower interest, market making, RWA income, or token emissions?
- How much of the headline APY is organic versus incentive-driven?
- If rewards are in a native or emission token, is the yield likely to remain sustainable after incentives end?
| High |
| TVL and Volatility | - Is TVL sufficiently large (for example, TVL greater than 50 million USD for more than 3 months can be considered solid, and greater than 100 million USD can be considered strong)?
- Is TVL relatively stable, without sharp fluctuations that indicate dependency on short-term institutional or mercenary yield-farming capital?
| High |
| Liquidation / Deleveraging Mechanisms | - For lending or perp DEXs: Do liquidation mechanisms function reliably in volatile markets?
- Is available liquidation venue liquidity sufficient relative to plausible liquidation volume under stress?
- Could correlated leverage, shared collateral, gas spikes, MEV competition, or weak keeper incentives cause liquidation delays, bad debt, or cascading losses?
- For yield-bearing stablecoins: Are there structural risks of depeg or death spiral?
| High |
| Insurance / Safety Fund | - Is there an insurance or safety fund to compensate users in case of unexpected losses?
- Are its size and trigger conditions clearly defined?
| Medium |
Area 3: Operational & Governance Trust
Evaluates how trustworthy and transparent the operating team or DAO is.
| Evaluation Item | Checklist / Points to Verify | Importance |
|---|
| Team Structure & Reputation | - Is the team anonymous or public (public teams generally earn higher trust)?
- For curators: Does the operations team have proven ability to select and manage sub-strategies and risks?
- Do team members have prior experience running successful projects?
| High |
| Off-chain Operational Risk | - Does the protocol rely on off-chain custody or trading?
- Which custody provider is used (Copper, Fireblocks, Ceffu, etc.)?
- Is proof of reserves available in real time or via regular reports?
- Is off-chain transparency ensured (for example through dashboards or attestations)?
| High |
| Curator / Operator Concentration | - Does the strategy repeatedly rely on the same curator, risk manager, collateral set, or operational venue across multiple exposures?
- Could aggregator-of-aggregators structures hide concentration that is not visible from the top-level vault or strategy name?
| High |
| Governance Timelock vs Response Window | - Are governance timelocks or execution delays short enough relative to plausible incident response windows?
- If not, are pause, withdrawal, or risk-reduction controls available through narrower emergency roles?
| High |
| Governance Transparency | - How are key decisions made (e.g., transparent forums and on-chain voting)?
- Is the community (Discord, Telegram, etc.) active, and does the team engage well with users?
| Medium |
| VCs and Partners | - Which VCs have invested?
- Are there partnerships with reputable protocols or infrastructure providers?
| Low |
Final Evaluation & Application
Each checklist item can be scored quantitatively.
Additionally, for “Highest Importance” items, a Pass/Fail criterion can be applied: if even one such item fails, the protocol is automatically disqualified.
