Derivatives · GMX · $0.5B TVL. GMX pioneered the pooled-liquidity perpetuals model that defined on-chain derivatives before order-book venues took over. Its July 2025 V1 exploit — $42M drained, roughly $40M returned by the attacker after a negotiated bounty — is the instructive counterpoint to Balancer in this screen: near-complete restitution means the framework reflects the event in the risk score without triggering a notching cap.
Solvency screens at BBB. Real fee coverage (~3x) from trading volume, minimal unlock pressure on a mature token, and a 40% drawdown. The 6/10 risk score is where the exploit lives — the flaw was real and reached user funds, but recovery was substantially complete and V2 was unaffected, so the framework prices it as damage rather than as an open wound.
Legitimacy screens at BBB. The pseudonymous team handled the incident with fast disclosure and successful recovery negotiation — creditable exploit-response quality. Audits (7/10) and delivery are adequate; governance is functional if low-participation.
Growth screens at B: 7% share and 3/10 momentum as Hyperliquid absorbed the derivatives category's growth. GLP-style pooled liquidity is losing the design argument to order books.
Composite B. A protocol whose technology thesis is being outcompeted rather than one whose credit is impaired. The contrast with Balancer is the cleanest illustration in this screen of what restitution does to a rating.
"A chain is as strong as its weakest link." The conservative composite takes the weakest dimension and inherits any notching cap, so a single structural weakness cannot be diluted by strength elsewhere.
