FORESHOCK

Protocols

Request coverage

Every protocol here carries a dated score and the share of it backed by independently verified evidence. Where that share is still thin the assessment says so, is marked Low-signal rather than given a risk band, and holds every unevidenced category at the neutral midpoint instead of assuming it safe. Every score and its reasoning are free to read; the underlying dependency, incident and audit records are part of a plan. Each reading here is fixed at the date beside it. Re-scoring never stops, but a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page, which is what a plan is for. How a score is built, how to read one, and how the rubric was tested against real exploits are all in the methodology.

Coverage grows three ways: protocols Foreshock selects at its own discretion, protocols requested through the Request coverage button, and sponsored assessments delivered on an agreed timeline. No path has a guaranteed date except sponsorship.

Scores run from 0, the safest reading, to 100, the riskiest, where 50 is the neutral midpoint every unverified category is held at. Red marks a protocol scoring 50 or above, the band called Elevated: worse than neutral on the evidence gathered. Amber marks one below it, called Moderate. The boundary is fixed. It does not move as coverage grows, and it is not fitted to any backtest result.

Enzyme Finance

Enzyme Finance official site N/A

Multi-Chain

:

  • Evidence: this reading is based on 100% of the scored weight, verified against named sources. Categories without verified data are held at the neutral midpoint at their full weight, never counted as safe.
  • Validation: the rubric is backtested against past exploits of protocols in the same TVL, age and category bucket. None has been evaluated for this one yet, so the reading rests on its evidence alone.

Published 2026-10-03, unchanged since. Subscribers are told the day it changes.

Why this rating
Dependency risk12.0
Uses 3 oracles, composable with 4 other protocols. Enzyme docs (Position Pricing, Risks): all funds share one ValueInterpreter maintained by the Enzyme Technical Committee; feeds "use Chainlink and Redstone aggregators", and "Enzyme uses both Chainlink and Redstone as oracle providers, with Chainlink as the primary solution and Redstone serving as a secondary provider".
Show the evidenceSome feeds are weighted averages, discontinuous or pegged (for example restaking tokens), which the docs call riskier and list separately. No bridge sits in core accounting; cross-chain use is by separate deployments on Polygon and Arbitrum.
Code characteristics9.0
Admin key: 3/5 multisig (requires 3 of 5 keys to act), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, open source.
Governance attack surface7.0
No governance token; control sits with multisig rather than a vote, so decision rights are concentrated rather than capturable. The form of that key is scored separately under code characteristics.
Audit profile5.0
33 audits on record, most recent audit is 1-2 years old; the most recent audit found 0 High and 0 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today.
TVL profile3.5
TVL change (11%) is within a stable range.
Historical incidents2.3
No known own or inherited incidents as of 3 October 2026.
Team factors1.8
Doxxed team, track record: unknown.
Protocol age1.5
2083 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.
Bug bounty1.2
Has a bug bounty program, up to $200 000, hosted on Immunefi.
Assets held (7)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Dependencies (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (33)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Common questions about Enzyme Finance

Foreshock's independent reading of Enzyme Finance is Moderate risk, 43.3 out of 100, as of 3 October 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is dependency risk: uses 3 oracles, composable with 4 other protocols. Enzyme docs (Position Pricing, Risks): all funds share one ValueInterpreter maintained by the Enzyme Technical Committee; feeds "use Chainlink and Redstone aggregators", and "Enzyme uses both Chainlink and Redstone as oracle providers, with Chainlink as the primary solution and Redstone serving as a secondary provider". All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. This published reading is fixed at that date. Re-scoring never stops, and when a reading changes it reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Foreshock publishes the reading and the reasoning behind it. It is not a verdict on whether to use this protocol, and it is not investment advice.

Is Enzyme Finance safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of Enzyme Finance is Moderate risk, 43.3 out of 100, as of 3 October 2026, led by dependency risk: uses 3 oracles, composable with 4 other protocols. Enzyme docs (Position Pricing, Risks): all funds share one ValueInterpreter maintained by the Enzyme Technical Committee; feeds "use Chainlink and Redstone aggregators", and "Enzyme uses both Chainlink and Redstone as oracle providers, with Chainlink as the primary solution and Redstone serving as a secondary provider". The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has Enzyme Finance been audited?
33 audits on record, most recent audit is 1-2 years old; the most recent audit found 0 High and 0 Medium severity issues. This reflects code quality at the time of that audit only, not a claim that these specific issues are still unresolved today. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls Enzyme Finance?
Admin key: 3/5 multisig (requires 3 of 5 keys to act), upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, open source. No governance token; control sits with multisig rather than a vote, so decision rights are concentrated rather than capturable. The form of that key is scored separately under code characteristics.
Has Enzyme Finance been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents as of 3 October 2026. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this Enzyme Finance assessment last updated?
3 October 2026, and that date does not move on its own. A reading published here is fixed when it is published; re-scoring never stops, and a changed reading reaches plan holders on the day it changes rather than this page. Every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Also covered on Multi-Chain

This assessment follows Foreshock's published methodology. Exact category weights, scoring rules, thresholds, and aggregation logic are proprietary and not shown here. How to interpret this assessment

This reading will change.

This reading is fixed at the date above it, and it stays there. We keep re-scoring Enzyme Finance as the evidence moves, a new audit, a changed admin control, an incident, and this page is free to read and always will be. The updated reading is what a plan buys: you are told by email on the day it changes, instead of finding out the next time you happen to look.

Pick one protocol and get a free weekly summary of what changed. Same-day alerts come with a plan.

Monitor this protocolGet told when this changesBrowse every protocol