@Core3io

CORE3 Community layer @Proof_Of_Voice shipped @Core3io into your feed A project handle now carries its Probability of Loss score beside it, before the thread starts selling the narrative Add it to your X workflow today See https://t.co/hNwLkWEjYa PoL scores in your feed⬇️

CORE3 indexes risk across $18B of yield-bearing protocols, now live on Trading Strategy CORE3 is partnering with @TradingProtocol to put a standardized loss signal of the issuing protocol next to the APY on every vault the platform lists. Trading Strategy is an algorithmic trading protocol for decentralized markets that aggregates yield-bearing strategy information across DEXs. TradingStrategy already scored the protocol-level technical risk to determine whether the vault was built secure on-chain. The Probability of Loss (1-99 Risk exposure index) adds a deeper asset issuer risk assessment. Vault-risk = if the vault is built securely on-chain. Probability of Loss = the chance that the vault-issuing protocol will face an adversary event on risk surfaces of operations, treasury/yield design, dependencies, governance, reputation. From now on, you can check the Probability of Loss across 17 chains for vaults at https://t.co/4FtcxCyUAo More details on blog: https://t.co/JD12Xf46Wl

On June 15th @ThetanutsFi's legacy $ETH vault contract was exploied, resulting $105K in losses CORE3 shows PoL score of 78 (D) which is a signal that this type of adverse event could happen, it did Here are 4 flags from our team, how this could have been avoided in advance🧵 https://t.co/e3SGbkmXLj

Two weeks of June headliners were ethereum:0xcf5104d094e3864cfcbda43b82e1cefd26a016eb $AZTEC $HAEDAL zcash:native $SAHARA lab:native Reasons, are as always key management and Claude Opus. But you can research which project will probably become their next victim Here is how to do it🧵

Since April, Web3 has spent three days without a major crypto exploit. Quite expectable for CORE3 users who got their hands on the risk data. As it happens, we released the 1,463-project Probability of Loss (PoL) dataset the same week Drift collapsed. Frankly, the probabilities for the next collapses were already in it. Drift Protocol, PoL 47 (CCC). $285M. The attackers posed as a trading firm, met the team at conferences, and even deposited over $1M of their own capital just to drain 285x more using compromised multisig. Operational gaps. KelpDAO, PoL 46 (CCC). Another $292M. Their bridge used a 1-of-1 verifier. Attackers fed the DVN a forged message, and the bridge minted $292M of unbacked rsETH. Dependency risk. Humanity Protocol, PoL 80 (D). $30M+. They used multisig 3-of-5 while having three of them on one laptop. Operational gaps compounded with security. THORChain, PoL 47 (CCC). $11M. The leading theory points to GG20, the threshold signature scheme securing its vaults: a 2020-era cryptographic library with critical flaws published back in 2023. Old code that nobody re-validated against known attacks. On-chain security. What the spring cases share is that the dominant exploit path of 2026 was key compromise. Get the keys off a founder's laptop, then mint or extract value. The best remediation is documented key storage, rotation, and signing policies, for example, under CCSS. Public data flagged the gaps that enabled those exploits. We did not know when. Probability of Loss measures, well, the probability of loss, not the date of loss. ⁉️Which projects will be next to learn how to store keys or audit deprecated infrastructure? The vigilant researcher will find answers in the data. The https://t.co/hNwLkWEjYa dataset also covers smaller projects that already suffered an incident, or still have the chance to: Verus, Haedal, LAB, RAVE, and 1,400 more. Check their risks, but don't get too bored.