2026-01-10 06:25:38

I recently uncovered details about a new type of lending protocol. The structure is quite interesting, but several issues in the audit report warrant caution.

Their core design is a Vault+Market isolation model—each lending pair operates within an independent liquidity pool. For example, using slisBNB as collateral to borrow lisUSD, or ETH against USDC, completely isolated from each other. The obvious benefit: if one pool encounters problems, it won't trigger a cascade of failures in other pools. This is an advancement in risk management.

Capital efficiency looks good, and the upgradeable contract design is usually a plus. However, the CertiK audit report raised an alert—there are issues with overly centralized upgrade permissions. Essentially, the core team holds significant power, and such architecture has a history of incidents.

The governance mechanism follows a "fast track" approach, with a 48-hour decision cycle combined with multi-signature and automated script execution. It sounds efficient, but it also means the community needs to monitor proposals 24/7. If malicious proposals slip in, reaction time becomes very tight.

On the data side, the periodic reward of 350,000 tokens with an annualized yield of over 38% is indeed attractive. But at the same time, the security score is only 5 out of 100, and the audit coverage is less than 20%. This yield essentially reflects a risk premium.

Overall, the product concept is innovative, and governance efficiency is high, but there are obvious shortcomings in security infrastructure. Experienced DeFi players might consider participating with small amounts for testing, while beginners are advised to observe for a while before making decisions.

ETH0,7%

DEFI2,1%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

13 Likes

Reward
13
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BearHugger

· 20h ago

The isolation pool design is good, but you really need to be careful with centralized permissions; there are too many lessons from history.

View OriginalReply0

HodlAndChill

· 01-10 06:55

Isolated pools sound good, but be really careful with centralized permissions... There are too many lessons from history. --- 38% annualized? Safety score of 5 stars? Isn't that just gambling on probabilities? Haha. --- Fast-track sounds efficient, but in reality, it just means constantly monitoring the market... Community members must be exhausted. --- I like the idea of vault isolation, but whether to upgrade permissions depends on the background of the core team. --- Daring to go live with less than 20% audit coverage? But the small-scale testing approach seems quite reasonable. --- Another high-yield, low-security-score scheme... When will this pattern finally change? --- A 48-hour decision cycle + malicious proposals mixed in... Just thinking about it is exciting, but the response time is indeed too tight. --- The product logic is interesting, no doubt, but it feels like they're using novelty to cover up security flaws. --- Centralized power + rapid governance, this combination is a bit dangerous... Everyone who has experienced setbacks knows this. --- Small-scale testing can be tried, but I’ll wait to see if there are any updated audit reports before making a move.

View OriginalReply0

UncleLiquidation

· 01-10 06:55

38% annualized return sounds great, but a safety rating of 5 points... this isn't a pie, it's a trap, brother.

View OriginalReply0

ChainWanderingPoet

· 01-10 06:55

The design of the isolation pool is indeed clever, but you really need to be careful with centralized permissions; there are too many lessons from history. A team with excessive power paired with a 48-hour fast track? It feels like they're just waiting for something to go wrong. 38% returns with a 5-point safety rating—I'm not interested in this deal. Fresh ideas are indeed fresh, but before I get on board, I need to see the audit coverage rate break 20% first. These types of projects are always high-reward, high-risk tricks; it all depends on who can escape quickly. The idea of preventing chain reactions in the isolation pool from causing a cascade failure is good, but unfortunately, it was ruined by permission design. 48-hour decision-making? Impossible. Malicious proposals, if they manage to slip in, will be the end of it.

View OriginalReply0

NotFinancialAdviser

· 01-10 06:55

The design of the isolation pool is indeed good, but you really need to be careful with centralized permissions; the lessons from history are right there.

View OriginalReply0

Web3Educator

· 01-10 06:54

nah the 38% yield is just risk premium dressed up fancy. 5/100 safety score? that's not a feature, that's a warning label lol

Reply0

BlockDetective

· 01-10 06:54

The isolation pool design is good, but the centralized permissions are really an old trick. Haven't there been enough lessons from history?

View OriginalReply0

ForkItAllDay

· 01-10 06:45

The design of the isolation pool can indeed prevent chain reactions of explosions, but the concentration of authority is truly a nightmare. The lessons of history are right here. Safety scores of 5 points yet offering 38% annualized return—aren't they just selling risk? It makes me uneasy just looking at it. A 48-hour decision cycle? Does the community still want to sleep? One sleep and you might get caught. Auditing coverage less than 20% before launch—these projects I only dare to give a thumbs up and walk away. Power is too centralized; no matter how good the architecture is, it can't withstand the temptation of a rug pull. 39% returns with a 5-point safety rating—I don't know how to solve this problem. The isolation mode is good, but the team is too controlling over upgrade permissions. There's a strong centralized vibe. Beginners really shouldn't touch this. If CertiK has already issued a red flag, what else is there to think about?

View OriginalReply0