defirisk.co
rubric v1.7.0

Protocol has bridge surface

A cross-chain & bridge factor in the v1.7.0 rubric. Measured per protocol on a s cadence.

Methodology how we score #

**What this measures** This factor is a Boolean gate for the rest of Category 10: it records whether the protocol has any bridge surface — either its own bridge, a bridge-operated dependency for cross-chain routing, or a cross-chain messaging layer (LayerZero OFT, Wormhole, Axelar). Source inspection and protocol documentation are used. Non-bridge protocols show this entire category as N/A and the category is not counted against the rubric score.

**Why it matters** Category 10 applies only to bridge-touching protocols; this factor determines whether any of the subsequent 11 bridge-architecture factors are relevant for assessment. Bridges represent a qualitatively different security surface from single-chain DeFi: they require message authentication across trust domains, validator-set integrity, and replay protection — failure modes that do not exist in purely single-chain protocols. The dataset records over $2B in bridge-related losses historically. Accurate identification of bridge surface at the profiling stage prevents both false positives (scoring bridge factors on a single-chain protocol) and false negatives (missing a bridge dependency embedded in a routing layer).

**Green / Yellow / Red** Green is scored when the protocol has no bridge surface and all Category 10 factors are correctly recorded as N/A. For bridge-touching protocols, this factor is recorded as "present" and the remaining Cat 10 factors are activated. Red is not applicable to this factor itself — its function is categorical rather than evaluative.

**Common gray cases** Gray is applied when the protocol uses a token bridge or relayer in an optional or non-core capacity and it is ambiguous whether the bridge surface is in scope for security assessment.

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

Measurement what to look for #

Determine whether the protocol has a bridge surface (its own bridge or a bridge-operated dependency for routing/minting).

Data & output #

Data source
Source inspection + protocol docs + on-chain cross-chain message contract identification
Output format
Green / Yellow / Red
Evidence artifact
Bridge contract address(es) or declaration that bridge surface is absent
Confidence signal
green = bridge surface absent (category is N/A); gray-as-applicable = N/A for non-bridge protocols; [note: this factor gates the rest of Cat 10 — if false, all remaining Cat 10 factors are N/A]

Scored protocols 80 carry this factor #

Protocol RD-F-147
Aave v3 ethereum green Across Protocol ethereum green Aerodrome Finance base not_applicable Axelar Network ethereum green Babylon Protocol bitcoin green Balancer (v2 + v3) ethereum not_applicable Beefy Finance ethereum green BENQI avalanche not_applicable BlackRock USD Institutional Digital Liquidity Fund (BUIDL) ethereum not_applicable Cap (cUSD / stcUSD) ethereum green Centrifuge ethereum green Chainlink CCIP ethereum green Circle USYC binance green Compound V3 (Comet) ethereum green Concrete ethereum yellow Convex Finance ethereum not_applicable crvUSD (Curve Stablecoin) ethereum not_applicable Curve Finance ethereum yellow deBridge ethereum green Dolomite ethereum green dYdX v4 (dYdX Chain) dydx not_applicable EigenLayer ethereum not_applicable Ethena ethereum green ether.fi ethereum green Euler V2 ethereum not_applicable Falcon Finance ethereum not_applicable Fluid ethereum green Frax Finance ethereum green GMX v2 (GMX Synthetics) arbitrum not_applicable Hyperlane ethereum green Hyperliquid arbitrum green Jito solana green Jupiter solana not_applicable Jupiter Perpetual Exchange solana not_applicable JustLend DAO tron not_applicable Kamino Lend solana not_applicable Kinetiq hyperliquid not_applicable Lido ethereum green Liquid Collective (LsETH) ethereum not_applicable Liquity V1 + V2 (LUSD / BOLD) ethereum not_applicable Lista DAO bsc green Lombard Finance ethereum green M^0 ethereum green Maple Finance ethereum green Marinade Finance solana not_applicable Meteora solana not_applicable mETH Protocol ethereum green Midas ethereum green Morpho V1 (Morpho Blue + MetaMorpho) ethereum not_applicable Multipli ethereum green Ondo Finance ethereum green OpenEden ethereum not_applicable Orca solana not_applicable PancakeSwap bsc green Pendle Finance ethereum green Polymarket polygon not_applicable QuickSwap polygon not_applicable Raydium solana not_applicable Rocket Pool ethereum not_applicable Sanctum solana not_applicable Save (formerly Solend) solana not_applicable Sky Lending (formerly MakerDAO) ethereum green Spark Protocol ethereum green Spiko stellar green Stake DAO ethereum not_applicable StakeWise v3 ethereum not_applicable Stargate Finance ethereum gray stHYPE (Valantis Labs) hyperliquid not_applicable SUNSwap (sun.io) tron not_applicable Superstate ethereum not_applicable Sushi (SushiSwap) — v2 + v3 + Trident + BentoBox/Kashi + SushiXSwap ethereum green Symbiotic ethereum not_applicable Synapse Protocol ethereum green Uniswap (v2 + v3) ethereum not_applicable USDD (Decentralized USD) tron not_applicable Usual (USD0 / bUSD0 / USUAL) ethereum green Veda (BoringVault) ethereum green Venus Protocol bsc green Wormhole ethereum gray Yearn Finance ethereum not_applicable

Linked hacks no historical incidents linked #

No historical incidents are linked to this factor.
rubric_version v1.7.0 factor RD-F-147 category 10 carried 80 critical no