Ethena
DAMASCUSSynthetic Stablecoin · Ethereum · $3B+ TVL · 10 contracts
Public risk assessment — scores are produced with the same methodology as monitored protocols
Security Profile
70
55
65
60
45
62
88
78
68
72
70
55
65
60
45
62
88
78
68
72
Audit History
Bug Bounty Program
Assessment
Novel synthetic dollar with extreme centralization (D5=45) and untested economic model (D2=55). CEX counterparty and custodian dependencies drag D3 and D4. High TVL does not compensate for fundamental design risks.
Dimension Breakdown
How scores work →- Mint/redeem gated to whitelisted minters only
- Admin can pause all operations
- Centralized role-based access control
- No permissionless entry points for core USDe minting
- Delta-neutral basis trade: novel, untested in prolonged negative funding
- Insurance fund (sUSDe reserve) provides buffer but size relative to TVL is thin
- Funding rate risk: negative rates erode backing, no on-chain hedge mechanism
- CEX counterparty risk: exchange failure could break the peg
- Internal oracle for mint/redeem pricing
- Hedging relies on CEX price feeds (opaque)
- No on-chain oracle validation for basis trade positions
- Staleness risk on internal price updates
- Live since Jan 2024 (~1.5 years)
- Rapid TVL growth to $6B+ but never stress-tested in prolonged bear
- Z-factor: 0.731
- Audited by Quantstamp, Pashov, Code4rena
- Highly centralized: team multisig controls all parameters
- No timelock on critical operations
- Minter whitelist controlled by admin
- ENA token governance largely ceremonial
- Score derived from continuous adversarial security research
- Reserves attestation via dashboard (not on-chain proof)
- Custodian operational security is opaque
- Active monitoring claimed but not independently verified
- Incident response plan not publicly documented
- CEX counterparty dependency (Binance, Bybit, OKX, Deribit)
- Custodian trust assumptions (Copper, Ceffu, Cobo)
- USDe widely integrated in DeFi (Pendle, Morpho, Aave)
- Failure cascade: USDe depeg would propagate to all integrators
- Appears in 3 cross-protocol cascade chain(s)
- Failure cascades to 4 downstream protocol(s)
- Member of 1 dependency cluster(s)
- Score: 72/100 (higher = more isolated from systemic risk)
- Source: cross_protocol_composition.json dependency analysis
- Standard on-chain contracts (ERC-4626 vault pattern)
- Off-chain custodian infrastructure is opaque
- Dependency on CEX APIs for hedging execution
- Modern Solidity, reasonable code quality
Risk Drivers
Primary risk factors driving this score, ordered by severity.
Adversarial Risk Signals
Observable security posture indicators. These signals reflect publicly verifiable information and responsible disclosure outcomes. No specific vulnerability details are exposed.
Score History & Verification
Score provenance tracking begins with the next reassessment.
On-Chain Data
- Protocol Slug
- "ethena"
- Oracle
- BRORegistry (Base)
- Evidence
- IPFS (pinned)
- Staleness Threshold
- 24 hours
registry.getScore("ethena")Reduce exploitable risk
BlackHart Monitoring provides continuous adversarial analysis, vulnerability detection, remediation support, and verified reassessment when your risk posture improves.