Aave (AAVE)

Surfacing risk in DeFi protocols earlier could’ve saved billions of dollars.

@l2beat already does this for L2s, but we need the same review depth for all DeFi protocols.

DeFi Punk'd could fill this security hole.

It's a risk assessment site for more than 8,000 DeFi protocols, where anyone can run a pre-built AI prompt on any protocol and submit a risk score.

Each protocol gets a visual risk score across 5 categories: Control, Ability to Exit, Autonomy, Open Access, and Verifiability.

To check info about any protocol:

→ Go to https://t.co/gpQeluT7vc and search for it
→ Each category shows a color - green (low risk), orange (moderate risk), red (high risk), and gray (not assessed yet)
→ You can click on any category to read what the models found, the evidence they cited, and how many models agreed on the score

The tier badge for protocols shows the review depth, from lowest to highest (Wood, Bronze, Silver, and Gold)

Any user can contribute a score as well:

→ Open any protocol page and click on any non

AAVE: Arbitrum Bro, the $71 million frozen by you on the hacker's side, can you return it first? Users are waiting for asset restoration.

Arbitrum: Don't worry, the DAO is voting, the process should be quick once completed. DeFi United, you know, Bro.

AAVE: Looking forward to good news!

(American lawyer appears)

DPRK creditor lawyer: Brothers, I know you're anxious, but hold on, this money cannot be moved right now.

AAVE: ???

DPRK creditor lawyer: We have prior judgments against DPRK. The hacker is Lazarus, and Lazarus is DPRK, so this money belongs to DPRK's property interests. Since it's DPRK's, we can enforce a claim (priority to us).

AAVE: Hold on. How do you prove this is a DPRK hacker?

DPRK creditor lawyer: Everyone on Twitter says so.

AAVE: ...anything else?

DPRK creditor lawyer: There are also news reports.

AAVE: Even if it is Lazarus, does money stolen by the hacker become his property after a few days in his possession?

DPRK creditor lawyer: It's at least enough for us to assert execution.

AAVE: Let me give another example. Someone smashed a Tiffany window, stole a diamond, and the store security seized the diamond. Since the thief previously owed someone money, now the thief's creditor comes and says: Does this diamond now belong to me?

DPRK creditor lawyer: If you can prove the thief has a property interest in it, then yes.

AAVE: But that diamond was stolen.

DPRK creditor lawyer: Bro, talking to me won't help, go to court and reason.

Arbitrum: So can I now transfer the money to the asset recovery wallet?

DPRK creditor lawyer: No. A restriction notice has been served. Without a court order, do not move it.

AAVE: But this money corresponds to innocent users' losses.

DPRK creditor lawyer: Bro, talking to me won't help, go to court and reason.

AAVE: If this logic holds, will we have to sue the hacker's creditors before intercepting hacker funds in the future?

DPRK creditor lawyer: Welcome to experience the brilliance of American justice.

AAVE: Then who will dare to freeze hacker funds immediately in the future? Once frozen, it drags us into one or even several costly asset ownership lawsuits.

DPRK creditor: Bro, talking to me won't help, go to court and reason.

AAVE: Your Honor, either lift this restriction quickly, or require the other side to post a 300 million deposit! Users are now waiting for asset recovery, but