Fork has different economic parameters than upstream
Save (formerly Solend)'s assessment for RD-F-132 — scored red on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
The fork has materially different economic parameters vs upstream: per-pool LTV/liquidation thresholds, per-pool borrow/deposit limits, custom interest-rate models, token-specific liquidation bonuses, 13+ isolated pool configurations. These all differ from upstream defaults and were not covered by the Kudelski audit which focused on v1.0 code structure. No confirmed re-audit of these parameter changes.
Sources #
- AuditSolend Audit v1.0 — Kudelski SecurityKudelski v1.0 audit scope does not cover post-audit pool additionsretrieved 2026-05-17
- Isolated Pools | Save (formerly Solend)Save isolated pools — per-pool economic parametersretrieved 2026-05-17
Methodology #
Determine whether the fork's economic parameters (collateral factor, LTV, fee structure) differ from upstream audited defaults without a subsequent re-audit.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →