Skip to content
Crypto Almanac Daily
V
Lending

Venus Core Pool

Best for independently tracked protocol

Total value locked:$1,081m at this checkChains:8Audits 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
8.0
out of 10
Open account
Scorecard

How it rates

Counterparty & contract risk · 40%8.0
Cost transparency · 15%7.0
Market quality · 15%9.0
Transparency & track record · 20%8.0
Public documentation surface · 10%8.0
Pros
  • Audit report linked from a public dataset
  • TVL of $1,081m recorded independently
Cons
  • No accounting methodology published 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% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Cost transparency · 15% weight7/10 points · 7.0/10
Market quality · 15% weight9/10 points · 9.0/10
Transparency & track record · 20% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10
Public documentation surface · 10% weight8/10 points · 8.0/10

A long-running BNB Chain lending market holding $1.08bn across eight chains, restructured with isolated pools after a 2021 price manipulation incident.

Our assessment

Venus holds $1.08bn across eight chains with two audits and reports linked. It is one of the longest-running lending markets on BNB Chain, and its design today reflects a 2021 incident in which price manipulation of a listed collateral asset produced substantial bad debt.

What happened in 2021

A large holder used an inflated price on a thinly traded collateral asset to borrow far more than the position warranted, leaving the protocol with bad debt when the price corrected. It is the canonical illustration of why collateral listing is the most dangerous decision a lending protocol makes — the code worked exactly as written.

Isolated pools were the answer

Venus subsequently separated riskier assets into isolated pools so that a manipulated collateral cannot reach lenders of blue-chip assets. Aave reached the same conclusion independently. When two protocols converge on the same structural fix after losing money the same way, that is the industry learning something.

Long operation is its own evidence

Surviving multiple cycles, a major incident and the remediation that followed is a track record no new protocol can produce. Two audits with linked reports and multi-chain deployment support the rest of the picture.

Who it suits

Venus fits BNB Chain users who want an established, audited lending market and will check which pool an asset sits in. Users wanting the deepest markets overall should use Aave.

Alternatives

How rivals compare

ServiceScoreBest for
Compound V39.9audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Aave V39.9audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Euler V29.6audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Fluid Lending9.6audited protocol with published methodologyRead →
Reference

Frequently asked

Does this score mean Venus Core Pool 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.