Underwrite risk in real time.
Allocating onchain means underwriting code you did not write, operated by people you have not met, that changes without telling you. Guardian underwrites that risk the way a credit desk underwrites a counterparty: evidence, a score, and a position that gets re-priced the moment the evidence moves.
- Underwriting
- Scoring
- Monitoring
The position did not change. What secures it did.
Diligence that reads the code, not the docs.
A protocol's own materials tell you it was audited. They rarely tell you by whom, at which commit, what was out of scope, what is still open, or who can upgrade it this afternoon. Guardian underwrites the position on evidence: the deployed code, the people who control it, and everything it depends on to stay solvent.
- Deployed code, not the repository What is actually live at the addresses you would be exposed to, whether it matches what was reviewed, and what has changed since the last report.
- Control and custody Who can upgrade, pause, or drain: signer sets, thresholds, timelocks, admin keys, and whether an emergency action needs anyone's agreement.
- Dependencies Oracles, bridges, keepers, and upstream protocols, assessed as inherited exposure rather than as someone else's problem.
- Economic failure paths How the position loses money without a bug: liquidation behaviour, pricing assumptions, liquidity depth, and correlation you are not being paid for.
- Operator posture Track record, disclosure behaviour, how past incidents were handled, and whether there is anyone to reach on a Sunday.
Every input is inspectable. A score you cannot take apart is a number you cannot defend to an investment committee.
One number you can actually compare.
Allocators do not need another dashboard. They need to put two protocols side by side and say which one is carrying more risk per dollar, in a form that survives being read aloud in an investment committee. That is what the score is for, and why every input under it stays visible.
The bands are mapped to your mandate, so the same score means the same action every time it appears.
- Comparable across protocols The same inputs, weighted the same way, so two positions can be ranked rather than described.
- Mapped to your mandate Bands are set against what you are allowed to hold and at what size, so a score turns into a decision rather than a conversation.
- Decomposable Every score opens into its inputs and the evidence behind each one. Nothing is a black box you have to take on faith.
- Position-weighted Scores read against allocation, so a weak score on a small position does not look like the same problem as a weak score on your largest.
- Reportable Output your LPs, your risk committee, and your auditors can read without a translation layer.
Underwriting expires the moment they deploy.
A diligence memo is accurate on the day it is written. Then the protocol upgrades, adds a signer, swaps an oracle, or quietly points at a new bridge, and the memo is describing a system that no longer exists. Guardian keeps watching, and the score moves when the thing it measures does.
- Deployment and upgrade watch New implementations, proxy changes, and parameter updates at the addresses you are exposed to, checked against what was last reviewed.
- Control changes Signer sets, thresholds, timelock changes, and role grants — the changes that quietly alter who can take your money.
- Dependency drift An oracle source swapped, a bridge route added, a keeper replaced: inherited risk that arrives without an announcement.
- Perimeter and operator signals The team's own external exposure and operational posture, watched continuously rather than sampled at diligence.
- Alerting that respects your time Material moves reach you the day they happen, with the exposure attached. Everything else waits for the report.
Nothing about the yield changed on the sixteenth. Everything about the risk did.
Start with the position you are least sure about.
Send us one protocol you are already exposed to. You will get back an underwritten view of what secures it, a score you can put in front of a committee, and the monitoring that keeps both current.