ENS/NameStone identity bound to deployer
Liquity V1 + V2 (LUSD / BOLD)'s assessment for RD-F-117 — scored yellow on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
No ENS name found bound to v2 deployer (0x83cfa33a2ee969f8add9a2acdcdc0d7e556e5ed0) or v1 deployer (0xa850535D3628CD4dFEB528dC85cfA93051Ff2984) in Etherscan lookups. Etherscan labels (Liquity V2: Deployer 2; Liquity: Deployer) are platform-assigned exchange labels, not ENS-bound identities. ENS/NameStone identity is absent. Yellow rather than red because the team is extensively doxxed via other mechanisms (real names, corporate entity, LinkedIn, conference appearances) making ENS absence a formatting gap, not an identity gap.
Sources #
- EtherscanLiquity: Deployer | EtherscanEtherscan address page for v1 deployer showing no ENS name resolvedretrieved 2026-05-16
- Liquity V2: Deployer 2 | EtherscanEtherscan address page for v2 deployer showing no ENS name resolvedretrieved 2026-05-16
Methodology #
Determine whether the deployer address has a bound ENS or NameStone name resolvable to a verifiable identity.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →