Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
M
Perp Dex

Moonlander

Best for documented on-chain trading

Total value locked:$19m at this checkChains:2Audits recorded:0Audit report linked:Not foundRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
5.0
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 30%4.0
Cost transparency · 20%4.0
Market quality · 25%6.0
Transparency & track record · 15%6.0
Public documentation surface · 10%6.0
Pros
  • Deployed across 2 chains
Cons
  • No audit report linked in the public dataset at this check
  • No documentation site found at a conventional address
How this score was built

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.

Counterparty & contract risk · 30% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Cost transparency · 20% weight4/10 points · 4.0/10
Market quality · 25% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Transparency & track record · 15% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10

A small perpetuals protocol holding $19m across two chains, with limited published evidence available to evaluate before depositing.

Our assessment

Moonlander runs perpetual markets across two chains with $19m locked. It is among the smallest venues in this comparison and among the least documented, which is the combination our rubric penalises most consistently.

Small and unaudited compounds the risk

A large protocol with no published audit at least has adversarial attention: exploits are attempted constantly and survival is a form of evidence. A small protocol has neither the published review nor that history. Both of the things that could reassure a depositor are absent, which is a different situation from either one alone.

Liquidity determines whether you can leave

At $19m, the practical question is not entry but exit. During a volatile session, when several traders and the liquidation engine want the same liquidity at once, a thin pool produces fills far worse than the screen suggested. Position sizing should assume the exit is the hard part.

What could not be established

No audit report at a public address, and thin results on the transparency and documentation indicators. Our rubric scores published evidence, and there is little here to score.

Who it suits

On the published evidence, most readers are better served by the audited venues in this table. Moonlander suits users already familiar with its ecosystem who have made their own assessment of the contracts.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
GMX V2 Perps9.3audited, multi-chain deploymentRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Moonlander is safe to use?

No. It measures what an outsider can verify: linked audits, published documentation and independently recorded market data. Contract behaviour is not tested by us.

Where does the TVL figure come from?

An independent public analytics platform, queried at the verification date. Anyone can re-run the same query.

Why do some protocols score zero on audits?

Because no audit report is linked in the public dataset. It records what a user can reach, not a claim that no audit was ever performed.