Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
S
Yield Aggregators

Superform

Best for audited protocol with published methodology

Total value locked:$18m at this checkChains:10Audits recorded:2Audit report linked:YesRubric:v2.0 · verified 9 Aug 2026
Kayla PetersonKayla PetersonDeFi Research Analyst· Last verified August 9, 2026
Confidence ARubric v2.0Verified August 9, 2026
9.3
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 40%10.0
Cost transparency · 15%9.0
Market quality · 15%6.0
Transparency & track record · 20%10.0
Public documentation surface · 10%10.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • Accounting methodology published
Cons
  • Several indicators could not be verified from public sources at this check
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 · 40% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10
Cost transparency · 15% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
Market quality · 15% weight6/10 points · 6.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight10/10 points · 10.0/10

A cross-chain yield router holding $18m across 10 chains, letting users enter opportunities on other networks without manual bridging.

Our assessment

Superform holds $18m across 10 chains with two audits and reports linked. It routes deposits into yield opportunities on other chains from a single interface, handling the bridging and the destination transaction as one action.

Removing the bridge step removes the mistakes

Manual cross-chain yield farming means bridging, waiting, holding gas on the destination chain, then depositing — a sequence where users regularly send to the wrong address, use the wrong bridge, or strand assets without gas. Collapsing it into one transaction eliminates a whole class of user error, which is a real safety improvement.

Bridge risk does not disappear

The bridge is still there, and bridges remain the largest single source of catastrophic losses in DeFi history. An abstraction that hides the bridge makes it easier to use and no safer. Users should know which bridge is being used on the route they take, even though the interface no longer requires them to choose it.

Evidence position

Two audits with linked reports and documented routing is a strong profile for a cross-chain protocol, where the attack surface is larger than for a single-chain vault. At $18m it is small, which limits per-transaction capacity more than it limits safety.

Who it suits

Superform fits users who farm across chains and want the routing handled with fewer manual steps. Users who prefer to control each hop should bridge and deposit themselves.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
Beefy9.4audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Fusion by IPOR9.3audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Superform 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.