Fluid Lending
Best for audited protocol with published methodology
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- Accounting methodology published
- TVL of $670m recorded independently
- Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
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
Audit report linked from the public protocol dataset.
docs.fluid.instadapp.io/audits-and-security.html - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending - MetAccounting methodology published in the dataset
Methodology published.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending - Met
- Met
- MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
www.fluid.io/ - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.fluid.io/
- MetTotal value locked published independently
TVL $670m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending - Met
- Not met
- Met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lending - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A lending protocol holding $670m across five chains, whose collateral simultaneously serves as trading liquidity under a combined design.
Our assessment
Fluid Lending holds $670m across five chains with two audits and reports linked. Its architecture is the same one behind Fluid's DEX: collateral in the lending market can simultaneously act as trading liquidity, so one deposit earns from two sources.
Why the design is interesting
Conventional DeFi leaves capital idle in one role while it could be productive in another. Fluid's smart collateral and smart debt let a borrower's position also function as an AMM position, which measurably improves capital efficiency. Few protocols attempt this, and fewer publish audits for it.
Combined exposure needs to be understood as combined
A position now carries liquidation risk from the lending side and divergence risk from the trading side, and they interact — a price move can worsen both at once. That is not a hidden flaw; it is the arithmetic of the design. Users comfortable with each mechanism separately should still model them together before sizing a position.
Evidence in good order
Two audits with linked reports and documented parameters is what lifts this above other novel designs in our comparison, several of which publish nothing. For an architecture without years of adversarial history behind it, published review is the substitute available.
Who it suits
Fluid Lending fits experienced DeFi users who want higher capital efficiency and understand both liquidation and divergence risk. Users who want conventional, heavily battle-tested lending should use Aave or Compound.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Fluid Lending is safe?
No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded market data. Contract risk is not tested by us.
Where do the TVL and audit figures come from?
A public analytics dataset queried at the verification date, plus the audit reports it links. Both are re-runnable by anyone.
Why do some protocols score zero on audits?
Because no audit report is linked in the public record. The indicator records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit exists.