Fork has different economic parameters than upstream
Aerodrome Finance's assessment for RD-F-132 — scored yellow on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
(A) Aerodrome Pools: different emission schedule (15M AERO/epoch decaying 1%/epoch vs Velodrome VELO), 5% team allocation, two-governor structure. These Aerodrome-specific changes are not covered by a verified delta-audit. (B) Slipstream: new gauge/bribe mechanisms not in Uniswap v3; ABDK and ToB specifically audited these additions. Yellow for (A) due to delta-audit absence; green for (B). Composite yellow.
Sources #
- GitHubSlipstream audit coverage of gauge additionsSlipstream gauge/bribe additions — audited by ABDK and ToBretrieved 2026-05-04
- Aerodrome SPECIFICATION.md (economic parameter differences)Profile §6 — Aerodrome Pools emission schedule differs from Velodrome v2retrieved 2026-05-04
Methodology #
Determine whether the fork's economic parameters (collateral factor, LTV, fee structure) differ from upstream audited defaults without a subsequent re-audit.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →