defirisk.co
rubric v1.7.0

Bridge validator count (M)

Circle USYC's assessment for RD-F-148 — scored not_applicable on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.

Evidence summary #

Taxonomy mismatch: CCTP attestation is performed by Circle's own infrastructure - no independent validator set with a countable M. Circle is effectively the sole attesting entity. Factor assumes independent-validator-set architecture (e.g., Wormhole guardians, Axelar validators) which does not exist in CCTP. The equivalent validator count is 1 (Circle). Not_applicable; underlying single-issuer concentration risk assessed in Cat 2.

Sources #

  • Etherscan
    CrossChainTeller Ethereum - EtherscanCrossChainTeller at 0x5dbeCcECEbCdC2ce3258f6E638373d2923560c7d - redeemComplete(message, attestation) relies on Circle CCTP attestation, not an independent validator setretrieved 2026-05-16
  • Curator note
    CCTP Architecture AssessmentCCTP attestation model: Circle is sole attesting entity; no independent validator set exists to count or assess k-of-M thresholdretrieved 2026-05-16

Methodology #

Count the number of distinct validators or signers in the bridge's signer set (for non-LZ bridges; use F179 for LayerZero OFT).

See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →

rubric_version v1.7.0 protocol circle-usyc factor RD-F-148 score not_applicable collected_at 2026-05-15 21:56:43