Grove Finance
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Accounting methodology published
- $2,436m recorded independently
- No audit report linked in the public dataset 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.
- Not metIndependent audit report linked publicly
No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/grove-finance - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published value and history.
defillama.com/protocol/grove-finance - Met
- MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
data.grove.finance/
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
data.grove.finance/ - MetProtocol economics published independently
Value and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/grove-finance - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
data.grove.finance/ - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
data.grove.finance/
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Partial
- Met
- Not met
- MetCategory and chains disclosed
Category Onchain Capital Allocator, 4 chain(s).
defillama.com/protocol/grove-finance - Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
A credit and yield protocol holding $2.44bn across four chains, with no audit report retrievable at a public address at this check.
Our assessment
Grove Finance holds $2.44bn across four chains in credit and yield strategies. No audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check, which is what holds the score at 7.2 despite substantial scale.
Institutional-scale capital, retail-scale disclosure
A protocol holding $2.44bn is operating at a size where institutional allocators are involved, and those allocators typically receive documentation directly. Public disclosure is what everyone else has, and here it is thin. Our rubric scores what is public, because that is what a reader can act on.
Credit strategies fail slowly and then quickly
Unlike a smart contract exploit, which is immediate and visible, credit deterioration accumulates invisibly: a borrower's position weakens, collateral quality erodes, concentration builds. By the time it is apparent, the losses are already embedded. Regular disclosure of exposures is the only way an outside holder can see it coming.
What would improve the score
Published audit reports, documented strategy parameters and periodic exposure disclosure at stable addresses would move this into the upper group without any change to the protocol itself.
Who it suits
Grove fits allocators who receive documentation directly and can perform their own diligence. Users relying on public disclosure should prefer Sky Lending, Ondo, Centrifuge or Spiko.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Grove Finance is safe?
No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published methodology and independently recorded data. Contract and custody risk are not tested by us.
Where do these figures come from?
A public analytics dataset queried at the verification date, plus the audit reports it links. Anyone can re-run the query.
Why do some protocols score zero on audits?
Because no audit report is linked in the public record. It records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit exists.