DEFISCOREAUDIT
An Investgineer Company
← Back to DeFiScoreAudit
Rating Certificate · No. 0002

Aave

Lending protocol · AAVE. Full quantitative scorecard under Methodology v1.0 — normalized bands, weighted scoring, fatal-flaw notching caps, and a stress-tested Solvency grade across four standardized shocks.

Rated July 21, 2026 Methodology v1.0 (quantitative) Caps triggered 0
Solvency
AA
89.3 / 100 · stressed worst-case A (76.5)
Will it survive and pay users back?
Legitimacy
AA
87.0 / 100
Is it real, credible, delivering its stated aim?
Growth
BB
58.5 / 100
Adoption toward the protocol's own goal, peer-relative.
Axis I · Credit Grade

Solvency — AA

Sustainability ratio and treasury runway both score a full 100 — Aave earns far more than it emits, and revenue alone covers the DAO's operating budget with no net burn. The score is held back by a 35% max 90-day TVL drawdown and 74.8% utilization, which thin the liquidity buffer for withdrawals.

Solvency scorecardAA
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
Sustainability ratio (revenue / emissions)13.4x
20%20.0
Treasury runway (net of revenue)999 mo
20%20.0
TVL stability (max 90-day drawdown)35.0%
15%9.8
Collateral cushion (utilization)74.8%
15%10.5
Unlock pressure (next 12 mo)0.5%
10%10.0
Oracle & dependency risk9 / 10
10%9.0
Exploit financial impact history10 / 10
10%10.0
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE89.3 → AA

Stress-tested Solvency

The Solvency scorecard is re-run under four standardized shocks. Published rating format: "Solvency: AA (stressed: A)" — the worst case across all four scenarios is a bank-run shock, which drops the grade to A.

ScenarioRevenue ΔTreasury ΔDrawdownUtilizationScoreGrade
Base0%0%35%74.8%89.3AA
S1 · Market crash-40%-30%50%88%81.8AA
S2 · Bank run-50%-10%60%90%78.0A
S3 · Stablecoin depeg-20%-10%45%80%80.5AA
S4 · Dependency failure-30%-10%40%78%76.5A
Axis II · Legitimacy Score

Legitimacy — AA

Team transparency and the live bug bounty program both score a full 10/10 — Aave Labs is fully doxxed with a track record since 2017. The softest spot is governance activity: forum and Snapshot/AIP participation is real, but voting power is delegate-concentrated.

Legitimacy scorecardAA
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
Audit coverage (firms, recency, quality)9 / 10
20%18.0
Team transparency10 / 10
15%15.0
Delivery vs stated roadmap9 / 10
15%13.5
Governance activity & quality7 / 10
15%10.5
Exploit response quality9 / 10
10%9.0
Holder concentration (top-10 %)25%
10%7.0
Admin keys / upgradeability safety9 / 10
10%9.0
Bug bounty program10 / 10
5%5.0
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE87.0 → AA
Axis III · Adoption Trajectory

Growth — BB

Aave dominates its category — 52.4% of DeFi lending TVL and the deepest integration surface in the ecosystem, both maxed out. But this is the drag on the overall rating: trailing 12-month trend is negative across TVL, revenue, and active users, reflecting a sector-wide drawdown (TVL down from a ~$30B peak to $12.45B).

Growth scorecardBB
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
TVL 12-month trend-50%
20%5.0
Category market share52.4%
20%20.0
Revenue 12-month trend-41%
15%3.8
Active users 12-month trend-10%
15%6.8
Volume / borrows 12-month trend0%
10%6.0
Integrations & composability10 / 10
10%10.0
User retention / stickiness7 / 10
10%7.0
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE58.5 → BB
Composite

Which single grade do you publish?

DeFiScoreAudit publishes all three axis grades separately by design — but two composite conventions are available if a single headline number is needed.

Conservative (recommended headline)
BB
58.5 / 100 · lowest of the three dimensions

"A chain is as strong as its weakest link." Growth caps the composite here — Solvency and Legitimacy alone would suggest AA, but adoption trend is genuinely soft.

Blended (40% Solv / 30% Leg / 30% Gro)
A
79.4 / 100 · weighted average

Alternative composite that weights the balance-sheet dimensions more heavily. Whichever convention is chosen should stay fixed across every protocol for comparability.

Data caveats. Several inputs are marked ESTIMATE pending source verification, most notably the annualized revenue figure — sources conflict between a $142M DAO-revenue definition and a $907M broader-fee-revenue definition, and $402M was used here. TVL max drawdown, active-user trend, and top-10 holder concentration are also estimates pending exact on-chain confirmation. None of the eight notching-cap fatal-flaw conditions were triggered (no single-oracle dependence, no unresolved exploits, no unilateral admin upgrade key, no anonymous team control).