Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
F
Yield Aggregators

Fluid Lite

Best for independently tracked protocol

Total value locked:$145m at this checkChains:1Audits recorded:0Audit report linked:Not foundRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
5.2
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 40%4.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%5.0
Transparency & track record · 20%6.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • TVL of $145m recorded independently
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • No accounting methodology published at this check
  • Single-chain deployment
How this score was built

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.

Counterparty & contract risk · 40% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Cost transparency · 15% weight7/10 points · 7.0/10
  • Met
    Application reachable without an account

    Reachable without an account at this check.

    www.fluid.io/
  • Met
    Protocol economics published independently

    TVL and change history published.

    defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lite
  • Not met
    Accounting methodology published

    Not published at this check.

    defillama.com/protocol/fluid-lite
  • Partial
    Fee or reward model documented publicly

    Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.

    www.fluid.io/
  • Met
    No account required to reach the application

    Reachable without an account at this check.

    www.fluid.io/
Market quality · 15% weight5/10 points · 5.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10

A simplified yield product holding $145m, offering easier access to an underlying protocol with no audit report retrievable publicly.

Our assessment

Fluid Lite holds $145m as a simplified entry point to a more complex underlying system. No audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check, which is what holds the score at 5.2.

Simplified wrappers hide the mechanism

A product designed to make something complex accessible necessarily conceals what makes it complex. That is the point, and it means depositors arrive without understanding the mechanism they are exposed to. When something goes wrong, the people least equipped to interpret it are the ones the simplification attracted.

The wrapper is an extra contract

A simplified product is an additional contract layer between the depositor and the underlying protocol. Even where the underlying is well audited, the wrapper may not be — and a bug in the wrapper affects everyone in it regardless of how sound the layer beneath is.

What is missing

No audit report at a public address and thin transparency indicators. With $145m deposited, this is one of the larger gaps between capital held and evidence published anywhere in our comparison.

Who it suits

Fluid Lite fits users who understand the underlying system and want simplified access, accepting unaudited wrapper contracts. Users who want published review should use the audited aggregators in this table.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
Beefy9.4audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Superform9.3audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Fusion by IPOR9.3audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Fluid Lite 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.