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.

Hubble

Hubble official site N/A

Solana

:

  • 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 2026-09-23, unchanged since. Subscribers are told the day it changes.

Why this rating
Audit profile14.0
5 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 3 High and 17 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.
Code characteristics12.0
Admin key: unknown, upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, closed source.
Governance attack surface7.5
Top 10 holders control 70.72%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
Dependency risk6.8
Uses 1 oracle, composable with 1 other protocol. Hubble is an oracle CONSUMER and it consumes Scope, not Pyth or Switchboard directly.
Show the evidenceThis corrects the obvious prior: Hubble's own Anchor IDL contains zero occurrences of pyth, switchboard, oracle or confidence, and thirteen Scope identifiers. GlobalConfig carries scopeProgramId and scopePrices, and a scopePrices account is a required input to every price-sensitive instruction (borrowStablecoin, depositCollateralAndBorrowStablecoin, withdrawCollateral, tryLiquidate, tryLiquidateCashBased, redeem). A TWAP-divergence guard exists (error 6109 PriceTooDivergentFromTwap) alongside 6043 PriceNotValid and 6082 ParseScopePriceAccountFailed. No confidence-interval rule and no oracle fallback source is stated anywhere first-party, so neither is recorded.
TVL profile6.5
TVL is 96% below this protocol's own peak and has not recovered, so the revenue that funds audits, bounties and maintenance is largely gone while the contracts still hold value; TVL change (7%) is within a stable range.
Team factors3.0
Anonymous team, a weak but real signal on its own.
Historical incidents2.2
No known own or inherited incidents as of 23 September 2026.
Bug bounty1.5
Has a bug bounty program, up to $500 000.
Protocol age1.5
1693 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.
Assets held (2)

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 (5)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Common questions about Hubble

Foreshock's independent reading of Hubble is Elevated risk, 55.0 out of 100, as of 23 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is audit profile: 5 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 3 High and 17 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. 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 Hubble safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of Hubble is Elevated risk, 55.0 out of 100, as of 23 September 2026, led by audit profile: 5 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 3 High and 17 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. The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has Hubble been audited?
5 audits on record, most recent audit is over 2 years old; the most recent audit found 3 High and 17 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 Hubble?
Admin key: unknown, upgradeable without a meaningful timelock, closed source. Top 10 holders control 70.72%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
Has Hubble been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents as of 23 September 2026. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this Hubble assessment last updated?
23 September 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 Solana

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 Hubble 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