Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
79 lines (57 loc) · 4.55 KB

transparency.md

File metadata and controls

79 lines (57 loc) · 4.55 KB

📂 Transparency & public scores

Hallmark is designed to be independently verifiable. Every underwriting decision has a published artifact, every methodology change has a dated amendment, and every score-to-allocation link is auditable. Frontier yield requires frontier transparency.

What's public

Artifact Format Purpose
Methodology Versioned markdown The rubric itself — every criterion, weight, and scoring band
Amendments Dated markdown (v3.5_amendment.md, v4.1_amendment.md, …) Methodology changes with rationale and backwards-compatibility notes
Scores YAML, one file per protocol / asset / strategy / chain The canonical machine-readable scores consumed by the allocator
Assessments Markdown, one per protocol / asset / strategy The human-readable analysis behind each score
Allocator Policy Versioned markdown The verdict layer — how ForgeYields derives APPROVED/EXCLUDED verdicts, concentration caps, exit rules, and re-scoring cadences from Hallmark scores
Policy-as-code Versioned JSON (e.g. allocator_policy_v1_2.json) The machine-readable policy — the backend consumes the same file the reader sees

Score format

Each scored entity has a YAML file in the public forge-hallmark repository at scores/{protocols|assets|strategies|chains}/{slug}.yaml. A score record contains, at minimum:

slug: morpho-blue
layer: protocol
methodology_version: "v4.1"   # pinned at scoring time — see the repo for the current version
scored_at: "2026-05-18"
scored_by: "Risk Analyst Agent"
criteria:
  C1: { score: 2, evidence: "Spearbit + OpenZeppelin + ChainSecurity audits, all findings resolved" }
  C2: { score: 1, evidence: "TVL > $1B, 30d drawdown < 5%" }
  C3: { score: 3, evidence: "3/5 multisig + 48h timelock" }
  C4: { score: 2, evidence: "Zero exploits, > 18mo operational" }
  C5: { score: 3, evidence: "Singleton architecture, minimal dependencies" }
  C6: { score: 2, evidence: "Doxxed team, reputable track record" }
final_score: 2.3

Every score has evidence. A score without evidence is not a valid score.

Validation

Hallmark ships a set of validation scripts that run on every score change:

  • validate-scores.js — schema, range, and required-field checks on every YAML
  • check-cascade-integrity.js — enforces the Recursive Strategy Collateral Rule: if you change an L1 score, every L3 strategy in its dependency tree must be re-scored
  • check-drift.js — flags scores older than the cadence threshold (per the reassessment cadences set in the Allocator Policy)

Allocator integration refuses scores that fail validation. There is no "manual override" path that bypasses these checks.

Audit trail

For any historical allocation, the chain of evidence is:

Vault position
  ↓ which strategy?
Strategy YAML (GRS at deployment time)
  ↓ what methodology?
Methodology version (as pinned at scoring time)
  ↓ what inputs?
Protocol score YAML + Asset score YAML + Strategy assessment markdown

Every link is timestamped and version-pinned. If a position later goes bad, post-mortem can attribute the failure to a specific criterion (e.g. "C4 was underweighted; team failed to disclose a prior incident") rather than to vague "model failure."

How to verify a score yourself

  1. Find the strategy in the Strategies API.
  2. Pull its current score_id and look up the corresponding YAML in the public Hallmark feed.
  3. Cross-check the criteria block against the methodology version it references.
  4. Read the assessment markdown for the qualitative reasoning.

If you find a discrepancy, raise it — Hallmark treats criticism as a feature, not a bug.

Evidence base

The scoring/policy split is backed by published evidence, not assertion: a 28-incident no-hindsight backtest, adversarial full-registry reviews, an acceptance test re-run before every policy version ships, and an annual performance study. See the Allocator Policy for the current evidence artifacts.

What's not public (and why)

A subset of inputs to scoring is non-public: private security disclosures shared under NDA, team interviews, and operational due diligence notes. These influence the evidence fields but are never the sole basis for a score — every score must be reconstructible from public information alone. Private inputs can only tighten a score (push it higher / more conservative), never loosen it.