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.

LayerZero V2

LayerZero V2 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: measured against 6 comparable incidents/controls in this protocol's TVL, age and category bucket.
In short

Foreshock's independent reading of LayerZero V2 is Moderate risk, 45.8 out of 100, as of 6 September 2026. The largest single contributor to that reading is dependency risk: uses 5 oracles (LayerZero V2's security model replaced v1's fixed Oracle+Relayer pair with Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs) - independent entities that verify cross-chain message hashes before the destination chain's Message Library accepts them. Each application (OApp) configures its own DVN set and threshold (an X-of-Y-of-N model); a commonly cited example configuration is 2-of-3-of-5 (two required DVNs plus any three of five optional DVNs must sign off), used here as the representative count since LayerZero the protocol has no single fixed DVN set of its own - this is a genuine structural difference from a protocol with one canonical oracle committee, disclosed rather than smoothed over. Risk stated plainly in LayerZero's own materials: if all required DVNs plus enough optional DVNs collude, they can forge a fake message.). All nine scored categories are backed by verified evidence. 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 LayerZero V2 safe?
Foreshock does not answer that as a yes or a no. Its independent reading of LayerZero V2 is Moderate risk, 45.8 out of 100, as of 6 September 2026, led by dependency risk: uses 5 oracles (LayerZero V2's security model replaced v1's fixed Oracle+Relayer pair with Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs) - independent entities that verify cross-chain message hashes before the destination chain's Message Library accepts them. Each application (OApp) configures its own DVN set and threshold (an X-of-Y-of-N model); a commonly cited example configuration is 2-of-3-of-5 (two required DVNs plus any three of five optional DVNs must sign off), used here as the representative count since LayerZero the protocol has no single fixed DVN set of its own - this is a genuine structural difference from a protocol with one canonical oracle committee, disclosed rather than smoothed over. Risk stated plainly in LayerZero's own materials: if all required DVNs plus enough optional DVNs collude, they can forge a fake message.). The score and the reasoning are published in full so the reading can be checked rather than trusted.
Has LayerZero V2 been audited?
2 audits/contests on record, most recent (Zellic, 2023-12-01) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean. An audit describes the code at the time it was reviewed. It is not a statement that the protocol is safe today.
Who controls LayerZero V2?
Admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), open source. Top 10 holders control 36.64%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.
Has LayerZero V2 been exploited before?
No known own or inherited incidents. Foreshock records an incident against a protocol whether it originated there or was inherited from something it depends on.
When was this LayerZero V2 assessment last updated?
6 September 2026. Readings are recomputed as evidence changes, and every category carries the date of the evidence behind it.
Why this rating
Dependency risk12.0

Uses 5 oracles (LayerZero V2's security model replaced v1's fixed Oracle+Relayer pair with Decentralized Verifier Networks (DVNs) - independent entities that verify cross-chain message hashes before the destination chain's Message Library accepts them. Each application (OApp) configures its own DVN set and threshold (an X-of-Y-of-N model); a commonly cited example configuration is 2-of-3-of-5 (two required DVNs plus any three of five optional DVNs must sign off), used here as the representative count since LayerZero the protocol has no single fixed DVN set of its own - this is a genuine structural difference from a protocol with one canonical oracle committee, disclosed rather than smoothed over. Risk stated plainly in LayerZero's own materials: if all required DVNs plus enough optional DVNs collude, they can forge a fake message.).

Audit profile10.0

2 audits/contests on record, most recent (Zellic, 2023-12-01) has unread findings, scored as unknown, not assumed clean.

Code characteristics9.0

Admin key: an unidentified controlling contract (no single key can act alone; its signers and any delay are unverified), open source.

Governance attack surface5.0

Top 10 holders control 36.64%, adjusted figure may still include pooled custody (untagged exchanges, infrastructure contracts) due to tagging coverage limits; exclusions require positive identification.

TVL profile3.5

TVL change (9%) is within a stable range.

Historical incidents2.3

No known own or inherited incidents.

Team factors1.8

Doxxed team, track record: unknown.

Protocol age1.5

954 days live, past the ~1yr floor; treated the same as any older protocol, not scored progressively safer with more age.

Bug bounty0.7

Has a bug bounty program, up to $15 000 000, hosted on Immunefi.

Assets held (5)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Dependencies (1)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Incident history (0)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

Audit history (2)

Available with a plan. See pricing.

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 LayerZero V2 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.

Get told when this changesBrowse every protocol