Fusion by IPOR
Best for audited protocol with published methodology
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- Accounting methodology published
- 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.ipor.io/audits - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - MetAccounting methodology published in the dataset
Methodology published.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
app.ipor.io/fusion
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
app.ipor.io/fusion - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
app.ipor.io/fusion - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
app.ipor.io/fusion
- MetTotal value locked published independently
TVL $44m at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - Not met
- Not met
- Met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor
- MetIndependent analytics page published
Public protocol page with history.
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - Met
- MetChains and category disclosed
Category Yield Aggregator, 11 chain(s).
defillama.com/protocol/fusion-by-ipor - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
An automated allocation protocol holding $44m across 11 chains, moving capital between lending markets as rates change, with published audits.
Our assessment
Fusion holds $44m across 11 chains with two audits and reports linked. Rather than compounding a single position, it reallocates capital between lending markets as rates move — an automated version of what a rate-chasing depositor does manually and badly.
Rate chasing is real work
Lending rates move constantly with utilisation, and the best rate today is rarely the best rate next week. Doing this by hand means monitoring several protocols and paying transaction costs each time you move. Automating it captures spread that most depositors leave behind through inattention.
Automation inherits every destination's risk
Capital that moves between protocols is exposed to whichever one it currently sits in. A strategy that chases the highest rate will, by construction, tend toward the protocol offering the most — which is often the one taking the most risk. The allocation rules matter more than the automation, and a depositor should read them.
Evidence position
Two audits with linked reports and documented strategy logic put this near the top of the aggregator table. Counterparty risk carries 40% of the score in this category, the highest weighting we apply anywhere, because an aggregator's risk is the sum of every protocol it touches.
Who it suits
Fusion fits users who want lending yield optimised automatically and will read which markets it can allocate to. Users wanting simple single-protocol lending should use Aave or Compound directly.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Fusion by IPOR 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.