Maple
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Audit report linked from a public dataset
- TVL of $2,482m recorded independently
- No accounting methodology published 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.
github.com/maple-labs/maple-core#audit-reports - Met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published TVL and history.
defillama.com/protocol/maple - Not metAccounting methodology published in the dataset
No methodology published at this check.
defillama.com/protocol/maple - MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.maple.finance
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.maple.finance - MetProtocol economics published independently
TVL and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/maple - Not met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
www.maple.finance - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
www.maple.finance
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- PartialListed on the dataset for over a year
Listing date recorded in the dataset.
defillama.com/protocol/maple
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
An institutional credit protocol holding $2.48bn across two chains, now overcollateralised after uncollateralised loans defaulted in 2022.
Our assessment
Maple holds $2.48bn across two chains with two audits and reports linked. Its history is the most instructive thing about it: the protocol originally made undercollateralised loans to institutions, and in 2022 several borrowers defaulted, leaving lenders with losses.
What the 2022 defaults demonstrated
Uncollateralised on-chain lending depends on credit assessment and legal recourse, neither of which a smart contract provides. When crypto trading firms failed in 2022, pools lent to them took real losses. Maple restructured toward overcollateralised and more carefully underwritten lending as a result — the correct response, and one that required admitting the original model did not work.
Institutional lending has different failure modes
Rather than an oracle failure or a liquidation cascade, the risk here is borrower default and the value and enforceability of the collateral behind it. That is credit risk, assessed by people, and it is opaque in a way smart contract risk is not. Read who the borrowers are and what secures the loans before assuming a rate is safe.
Where it stands now
Substantial scale, published audits, and a documented history of both failure and remediation. That combination scores well in our rubric precisely because the failure was disclosed and addressed rather than obscured.
Who it suits
Maple fits lenders who want institutional credit exposure and will read the underwriting. Users wanting purely algorithmic, overcollateralised lending should use Aave or Compound.
How rivals compare
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Maple 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.