Unit
Best for independently tracked protocol
How it rates
- Accounting methodology published
- 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/unit - Not met
- MetTracked by an independent analytics platform
Listed with published value and history.
defillama.com/protocol/unit - Met
- MetApplication reachable at a public address
Reachable without an account at this check.
hyperunit.xyz/deposit
- MetApplication reachable without an account
Reachable without an account at this check.
hyperunit.xyz/deposit - MetProtocol economics published independently
Value and change history published.
defillama.com/protocol/unit - Met
- PartialFee or reward model documented publicly
Application reachable for review; specific rates not captured at this check.
hyperunit.xyz/deposit - MetNo account required to reach the application
Reachable without an account at this check.
hyperunit.xyz/deposit
- Met
- Not met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Met
- Not met
- Met
- Met
Cross-chain asset onboarding infrastructure holding $549m across five chains, with no audit report retrievable publicly.
Our assessment
Unit holds $549m across five chains, providing infrastructure for bringing assets from other networks into a destination ecosystem. No audit report was retrievable at a public address at this check.
Onboarding infrastructure is bridge infrastructure
However it is described, a system that accepts an asset on one chain and produces a representation on another is a bridge, with the same failure modes: custody of the deposited asset, correctness of the issuance logic, and the integrity of whoever attests that a deposit occurred. The terminology changes; the risk does not.
Ask where the deposited assets sit
The single most useful question for any bridge is who holds the underlying and under what conditions it can be moved. Multisig, MPC, a single custodian and a validator set are meaningfully different answers, and most bridge exploits have come down to the key management behind that answer rather than the contract code.
The evidence gap
No audit report at a public address, with thin transparency results. Counterparty risk carries 45% of the score in this category — our highest weighting anywhere — because bridge failures are catastrophic and irreversible rather than partial.
Who it suits
Unit fits users who need to move assets into its destination ecosystem and have established how deposits are secured. Users with a choice should prefer the audited options in this table.
How rivals compare
| Service | Score | Best for | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Portal | 9.6 | audited protocol with published methodology | Read → |
Frequently asked
Does this score mean Unit 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.