LayerZero V2
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Accounting methodology published
- $6,651m 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/layerzero-v2 - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published value and history.
defillama.com/protocol/layerzero-v2 - Met
- MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
layerzero.network/
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
layerzero.network/ - MetProtocol economics published independently
Value and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/layerzero-v2 - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
layerzero.network/ - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
layerzero.network/
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Partial
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
An omnichain messaging protocol securing $6.65bn across 60 chains, with configurable security settings chosen by each application.
Our assessment
LayerZero V2 secures $6.65bn across 60 chains, the widest deployment of any bridge or messaging protocol in this comparison. It is infrastructure that applications build on rather than a bridge most users interact with directly.
Configurable security is the defining property
LayerZero lets each application choose its own verification setup — which oracles and relayers must agree before a message is accepted. That flexibility is genuinely useful and it means security is not a property of LayerZero; it is a property of the configuration a given application chose. Two apps on the same protocol can have entirely different guarantees.
Which makes the question application-specific
A user cannot evaluate "is LayerZero safe" in a meaningful way. The answer is whether the specific application's verification configuration is adequate, and most users have no visibility into that. This is the same problem as modular lending: the base layer scoring well does not transfer to what sits on top.
No audit report at this check
No audit report was retrievable at a public address, which for infrastructure securing $6.65bn is the largest single gap in this table. Counterparty risk carries 45% of the score in this category — the highest weight in our entire rubric — and it is where messaging protocols have historically failed.
Who it suits
LayerZero matters to developers choosing messaging infrastructure more than to end users. Users bridging assets should check which application they are actually using and how it is configured.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portal | 9.6 | audited protocol with published methodology | Read → |
Frequently asked
Does this score mean LayerZero V2 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.