Lulo
Best for audited protocol with published methodology
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- Accounting methodology published
- Single-chain deployment
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.lulo.fi/audits - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/lulo - Met
- Met
- Met
- MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/lulo - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
lulo.fi/ - Met
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Not met
- MetListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/lulo
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
A Solana yield router holding $53m with published audits, automatically allocating deposits to the best available lending rate on the chain.
Our assessment
Lulo holds $53m on Solana with two audits and reports linked, routing deposits automatically to whichever lending market currently offers the best rate. Published audits are rarer among Solana protocols in this comparison than they should be, and it is the main reason this scores where it does.
Why automated routing suits Solana
Rebalancing between protocols costs almost nothing on this chain, so a router can move capital whenever a rate differential appears rather than waiting for it to exceed a gas threshold. The strategy that is marginal on Ethereum is straightforwardly profitable here, purely because of transaction economics.
You inherit the destination's risk
Optimised routing means your capital sits wherever the rate is highest, which is not necessarily where the risk is lowest. Read which protocols are in the allocation set — that list, not the router, determines what can go wrong. Several Solana lending markets in our comparison publish no audits at all.
Evidence position
Two audits with linked reports and documented allocation logic. Counterparty risk is weighted at 40% in this category because an aggregator concentrates the risk of everything it touches, and Lulo's own contracts being reviewed is a necessary rather than sufficient condition.
Who it suits
Lulo fits Solana users who want lending yield optimised automatically and will check the allocation set. Users wanting a single known counterparty should deposit into Kamino directly.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Lulo 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.