Risk methodology adds Cross-Chain Messaging Posture check + Kelp reference case
The cross-chain bridge configuration (DVN count, messaging-layer guarantees) becomes an explicit additional check in the TokenIntel DeFi Risk framework. Kelp DAO's 1-of-1 DVN setup becomes the cleanest reference case for why single-verifier bridge configurations are a structural vulnerability.
Uniswap toxic-flow risk surfaced as medium structural risk
Dedicated 'Toxic Flow Risk from Intent-Based Routing' subsection added to the Uniswap research page. Scored medium / structural / uncertain magnitude. UNI's thesis depends on fee-switch revenue quality, which depends on what intent-based solvers are pulling out of the AMM order flow. Multi-primitive risks noted alongside.
Launched Solver Landscape concept page
New concept page documenting how market-maker solvers, algorithmic solvers, and the new Solana private-DEX tier determine toxic flow, AMM LP economics, and where fee switches actually capture value. Framework for understanding UNI fee-switch quality and PropAMM dynamics.
Launched RWA Composability concept page
New concept page explaining why only ~$3.6B of $28.6B in tokenized RWAs is actually composable inside DeFi. The two leaderboards are almost inverted: Treasuries dominate AUM but credit dominates DeFi deposits. Composability is a yield-spread phenomenon, not an AUM phenomenon. Framework attributed to Dune's April 2026 analysis.
Solana: new 5 Pillars scorecard format added
Five-pillar structural scorecard debuted on the Solana research page: consensus / network / DeFi / consumer / TradFi+RWA onboarding. Internal framework for evaluating Solana across dimensions that don't all fit the generic L1 research template.
Solana research: Drift Protocol hack added ($270M)
The April 2026 Drift Protocol exploit drained ~$270M, contributing to Solana DeFi TVL settling at ~$6.3B (vs ETH's $55.6B). Hack context integrated into the Solana research page alongside a cyclicality callout and the new 5 Pillars scorecard format.
'Aave Will Win' (AWW) proposal passed: 100% of Aave-product revenue flows to DAO
The AWW proposal explicitly redirects all revenue from Aave-branded products (including Aave.com interface fees) back to the DAO treasury and requires service providers to build exclusively for Aave. Directly addresses the December 2025 dispute where CoWSwap integration fees on Aave.com were flowing to an external recipient. A protocol-level answer to toxic-flow / value-leakage dynamics.