Compound: defi protocols rating breakdown
Lending · 10 chains
The protocol that made on-chain lending work, and still one of the most conservatively engineered: V3 markets allow a single borrowable asset each, which is a blunt and effective way to stop one bad listing from reaching everyone. Governance changes run through a timelock, so an upgrade is visible before it takes effect. No depositor-loss event in six years.
The protocol that made on-chain lending work, and still one of the most conservatively engineered: V3 markets allow a single borrowable asset each, which is a blunt and effective way to stop one bad listing from reaching everyone. Governance changes run through a timelock, so an upgrade is visible before it takes effect. No depositor-loss event in six years.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Who can change the contract holding your money | governance vote executed through a timelock how upgrades happen · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 32% | 7 | 6.5 | 3 of 8 | +0.16 |
| Track record, and who paid when it broke | — | 25% | 7 | 7.5 | 5 of 8 | -0.13 |
| Value secured | $1.55bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source$1.98m 30-day protocol fees · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 20% | 5 | 8.5 | 8 of 8 | -0.70 |
| Can an outsider verify it? | — | 13% | 8 | 8 | 4 of 8 | 0.00 |
| Chains and integration | — | 10% | 7 | 8 | 5 of 8 | -0.10 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by value secured, worth -0.70 points against the median
Who can change the contract holding your money: 7/10
Sourced to each protocol’s own documentation: are the contracts immutable, upgradeable behind a timelock, or upgradeable by a multisig that can act immediately. If there is an emergency power — a pause, a freeze, a guardian — we record who holds it and how fast they can use it. Uniswap’s pool contracts cannot be upgraded at all. Most of this page can be changed by a vote, and some of it by a handful of signers.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 3rd of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.16 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Track record, and who paid when it broke: 7/10
Years of continuous operation holding real money, every incident with its date and amount, and whether users were made whole. Age alone is not evidence — plenty of protocols were old on the day they failed — but age combined with an unbroken record of not losing user funds is the strongest signal this category offers.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 5th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 25% weight that is 0.13 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Value secured: 5/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and thirty days of protocol fees as evidence that the value is being used rather than parked. Scale matters here in a specific way: a protocol securing tens of billions has been a standing target for years and has not been taken.
Scored 5 of 10 against a category median of 8.5, which places it 8th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 20% weight that is 0.70 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 5.
Can an outsider verify it?: 8/10
Open-source contracts, published audits, public parameter and risk documentation, and whether the numbers a front end shows can be independently recomputed from public data. A protocol that publishes the formula behind its yield is making a checkable claim; one that publishes only the number is not.
Scored 8 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 4th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 13% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 6.
Chains and integration: 7/10
Chains with real deployments, and how deeply the protocol is used as infrastructure by others, from public data at a stated timestamp.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 8, which places it 5th of 8 among defi protocols on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.10 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
| # | Entry | Value secured | How it differs |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Lido | 10 | Ahead by 5 on value secured. |
| 5 | Sky (Maker) | 8 | Ahead by 3 on value secured. |
| 7 | Curve | 6 | Ahead by 1 on value secured. |
| 8 | EigenLayer | 9 | Ahead by 4 on value secured. |
Questions about this score
What does a timelock on governance actually protect against?
+
It makes a change visible before it executes, so anyone watching can see what is coming and act — withdraw, object, or in an extreme case fork. What it does not protect against is a change everyone approved that turns out to be wrong, which is precisely what happened to Compound in 2021 when a passed proposal misdistributed roughly $80m of COMP.
Why has Compound shrunk?
+
Borrowers went where the terms were better. Its containment-first design costs capital efficiency, and $1.55bn of deposits generating $1.98m of monthly fees is what that looks like from a lender's perspective. The conservatism is deliberate and it has a price, which the protocol has been willing to pay.