BULK
Best for documented on-chain trading
How it rates
- Tracked and verifiable from public sources at this check
- No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
- No documentation site found at a conventional address
- Single-chain deployment
Each indicator scores 2, 1 or 0. A pillar is the points earned over the points available; the overall score is the weighted sum. Every source below is public — check any of them yourself.
- Not metIndependent audit published with a linked report
No audit report linked in the public protocol dataset at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Not met
- MetProtocol tracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Not metTechnical documentation published
No documentation site found at a conventional address at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Met
- Not metDocumentation published where fees are described
No documentation site found at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Met
- MetIndependent dataset publishes protocol economics
TVL and change history published independently.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Not met
- Not metNo account required to read protocol documentation
Not available at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- PartialListed on the independent dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetProtocol identity and chains disclosed
Chains and category published: Derivatives.
defillama.com/protocol/bulk - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
A single-chain perpetuals venue holding $29m, with a published evidence base among the thinnest in this comparison.
Our assessment
Bulk holds $29m on a single chain with no audit report retrievable at a public address and thin results across the transparency indicators. It scores 4.3 for that reason rather than for anything observed about its operation.
What our rubric can and cannot tell you
We check what is published: audits, operator identity, fee documentation, incident history, technical documentation. We do not trade on a venue, run its liquidation engine to failure, or evaluate its matching quality. A low score means the checkable record is close to empty — which is itself useful information, because that record is also all any other prospective user has.
Derivatives protocols fail in specific ways
The recurring failures in this category are oracle manipulation, liquidation logic that behaves unexpectedly in fast markets, and insurance funds too small for a tail event. None of these are visible from a TVL figure, and all of them are exactly what an audit report and a documented incident history would speak to.
Practical guidance
Treat capital deposited here as at risk of total loss, keep leverage low, and do not leave collateral in the protocol between sessions. That is the standard posture for unaudited derivatives and it is routinely abandoned when a funding rate looks attractive.
Who it suits
On published evidence, better-documented alternatives exist in this table at similar size. Bulk suits traders already active in its ecosystem who have done their own contract review.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| GMX V2 Perps | 9.3 | audited, multi-chain deployment | Read → |
Frequently asked
Does this score mean BULK is safe to use?
No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published documentation and independently recorded market data. Contract behaviour is not tested by us.
Where does the TVL figure come from?
An independent public analytics platform, queried at the verification date. Anyone can re-run the same query.
Why do some protocols score zero on audits?
Because no audit report is linked in the public dataset. It records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit was ever performed.