defirisk.co
rubric v1.7.0

First-depositor / share-inflation guard

A economic risk factor in the v1.7.0 rubric. Measured per protocol on a s cadence.

Methodology how we score#

What this measures
This factor evaluates whether the protocol's vaults or lending markets implement a first-depositor guard against share inflation attacks. Acceptable guards include: a seed deposit locked at deploy time (dead shares), a virtual-share offset (OZ 4.9 implementation), or an explicit floor check that prevents first deposits from setting an exploitable exchange rate. The check covers both ERC-4626 vaults and Compound-fork cToken markets. Source inspection is the primary data source.

Why it matters
The first-depositor share inflation attack affects any share-based accounting system where total supply can reach zero. The attack class spans cToken markets (RD-F-070), ERC-4626 vaults (RD-F-074), and hybrid architectures like Silo Finance where the receiver parameter allowed external depositors to inflate shares against capped markets. The common thread is that a zero-supply state creates a denominator-manipulation opportunity that the attacker can exploit before any legitimate user deposits. First-depositor guards (dead shares, virtual shares, or floor checks) eliminate this attack class by ensuring the denominator is never zero in practice.

Green / Yellow / Red
Green: all share-based accounting systems in the protocol have a first-depositor guard implemented in code and verifiable on-chain. Yellow: some but not all share-based systems have guards, or guards exist for ERC-4626 vaults but not for cToken-style markets. Red: no first-depositor guards in any share-based accounting system, or guards exist in documentation but are not enforced in deployed code.

Common gray cases
Protocols that deploy markets with a founding team deposit (non-code-enforced) may argue the risk is mitigated; curator must verify whether the founding deposit is locked in a way that prevents withdrawal before user deposits arrive, not merely present at the time of assessment.

Notable historical examples
No cross-hacked incidents currently linked in database for this factor.

Measurement what to look for#

Determine whether the vault has a first-depositor guard (seed deposit on deploy, virtual-share offset, or floor-check).

Data & output #

Data source
Source inspection + deploy transaction analysis for seed deposit on Etherscan-verified source
Output format
Green / Yellow / Red
Evidence artifact
Source excerpt of guard logic OR deploy tx showing seed deposit
Confidence signal
green = explicit guard present (seed deposit confirmed on-chain OR virtual offset ≥10^3); yellow = protocol docs claim guard but on-chain evidence absent; red = no guard mechanism identifiable; gray = not an ERC-4626 vault (N/A) or source unverified

Scored protocols 0 carry this factor#

No protocols have been scored for this factor yet.

Linked hacks no historical incidents linked#

No historical incidents are linked to this factor.
rubric_version v1.7.0factor RD-F-075category 4carried 0critical no