DeFiScoreAudit shield logo
DeFiScoreAudit
Detecting DeFi Risk, Before It Breaks
← Back to DeFiScoreAudit
Rating Screen · Methodology v1.0

Liquity

CDP · LQTY · $0.4B TVL. Liquity is the purest expression of DeFi's original design ethos in the entire screen: immutable contracts, no governance over core parameters, no admin keys, no upgrade path. What ships is what runs, forever. Its v2 (BOLD) extends the model with user-set interest rates. The screen scores the highest-integrity architecture in the universe attached to the weakest commercial trajectory.

Screened July 27, 2026 Methodology v1.0 (screen) Caps Triggered 0
Solvency
A
73.3 / 100
Will it survive and pay users back?
Legitimacy
A
79.5 / 100
Is it real, credible, delivering its stated aim?
Growth
CCC
28.8 / 100
Adoption toward the protocol's own goal, peer-relative.
Axis I · Credit Grade

Solvency — A

Solvency screens at A. The 8/10 risk score is earned by immutability itself — there is no admin key to compromise, no governance attack surface on core parameters, and the stability-pool liquidation mechanism has cleared every stress event since 2021 without bad debt. Unlocks are negligible. The ~1x sustainability ratio is the honest limit: a protocol that cannot change also cannot easily monetize.

Solvency ScorecardA
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
Sustainability ratio (revenue / emissions)1x
30%18
Does it earn more than it prints? Above 1x is self-sustaining.
TVL stability (max 90-day drawdown)35%
25%16.3
Bank-run indicator: worst 90-day deposit flight.
Unlock pressure (next 12 months)1%
15%15
Incoming insider sell pressure vs circulating supply.
Risk quality (collateral, oracle, exploit posture)8 / 10
30%24
Combined collateral quality, price-feed dependence, and loss history.
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE73.3 → A
Axis II · Legitimacy Score

Legitimacy — A

Legitimacy screens at A, with the highest governance score in the entire screen (7/10) — awarded, paradoxically, for having deliberately minimized what governance can do. Audits are deep, the team is public and research-driven, and v2 delivered on its published design.

Legitimacy ScorecardA
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
Audit coverage9 / 10
25%22.5
Code credibility: firms, recency, findings resolved.
Team & transparency8 / 10
25%20
Doxxed vs anonymous; track record; disclosure quality.
Delivery vs stated roadmap8 / 10
20%16
Does shipped product match the promise? The core legitimacy test.
Governance & decentralization7 / 10
30%21
Real distributed control vs theater; participation quality.
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE79.5 → A
Axis III · Adoption Trajectory

Growth — CCC

Growth screens at CCC, the harshest reading in the universe: 3% share, -25% TVL, 4/10 momentum. Immutability forecloses the rapid iteration that drives adoption; the protocol cannot chase a narrative even if it wanted to.

Growth ScorecardCCC
MetricRawNormalizedWeightWeighted
TVL 12-month trend-25%
35%8.8
Adoption of the core product, in absolute terms.
Category market share3%
30%6
Peer-relative position: winning or losing its niche.
Momentum & users4 / 10
35%14
Usage trajectory and integration growth, filtered for incentives.
FINAL DIMENSION SCORE28.8 → CCC
Verdict

Where Liquity Lands

Composite CCC, and the divergence between dimensions is the most extreme in the screen — A-grade solvency and legitimacy against a CCC growth reading. This is exactly why the methodology publishes three grades rather than one: a single blended number would hide both the quality and the stagnation.

Composite — Conservative (Recommended Headline)
CCC
28.8 / 100 · lowest of the three dimensions

"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.

Analyst Note
Immutable-contract ethos; v2 BOLD; small but highest-integrity design.
Screen vs full rating. This is Methodology v1.0 applied in screening form: the same bands, weights, caps and grade scale as the full Aave workbook, reduced to the highest-signal metrics per dimension so the whole universe stays comparable in one table. Screen grades are provisional. A full rating — per-metric sourcing plus four stress scenarios — is produced when a protocol is selected for publication. Every input is an analyst estimate as of July 27, 2026, drawn from public data (DefiLlama, protocol docs, governance forums, rekt.news) and judgment, and should be verified before being relied upon.
Want the full treatment? See the complete Aave rating — per-metric sourcing, four stress scenarios, and notching-cap analysis — for what a published rating looks like. Join the waitlist to get each new full rating as it publishes.