Caviar V1
Best for audited marketplace contracts
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- No application address published in the public record
- 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.
- MetIndependent audit report linked publicly
Linked from the public dataset.
code4rena.com/reports/2022-12-caviar - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published history.
defillama.com/protocol/caviar-v1 - Not met
- Not metApplication address published
No application address published in the public record at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/caviar-v1
- Not metApplication address published
No application address published in the public record at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/caviar-v1 - Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not metApplication address published
No application address published in the public record at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/caviar-v1 - Not met
- Not metApplication reachable
No application address published in the public record at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/caviar-v1 - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
A fractional NFT automated market maker with published audits, whose value locked has fallen to near zero.
Our assessment
Caviar V1 has two audits with reports linked and value locked at effectively zero. It is an example of a well-built protocol in a market that moved on, which is worth stating plainly rather than dressing up.
Fractional NFT AMMs solved a real problem
Splitting an NFT into fungible fractions lets several people own a share of a high-value piece and creates a continuous price where none existed. The mechanism works. What it needed was sustained demand for NFT exposure at a price level that made fractionalisation worthwhile, and that demand contracted sharply.
Audited does not mean maintained
Published audits confirm the code was reviewed at a point in time. They do not indicate that anyone is monitoring it now, that dependencies are patched, or that the team still responds. For a near-dormant protocol, the practical question is whether withdrawal still works — worth testing with a small amount.
Reading the score
5.1 combines good contract evidence with almost no market activity, and market quality carries 20% here. The mechanism is sound and the market for it is not currently there.
Who it suits
Caviar has limited use for new participants. Users wanting NFT liquidity should use NFTX or Sudoswap, both audited and holding more value.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| NFTX | 9.2 | audited marketplace contracts | Read → |
Frequently asked
Does this rank marketplaces by trading volume?
No. NFT volume figures are widely inflated by wash trading and we do not rank on numbers we cannot verify. The score covers audits, methodology and independently recorded data.
Why is value locked low for large marketplaces?
Most marketplace trading settles without holding assets in contracts, so value locked understates activity. We publish it as the available independent figure, not as a measure of market share.
Are creator royalties assessed?
No. Royalty enforcement is a marketplace policy that changes frequently and is not verifiable from a single public source.