RecheckableMarinade
marinade.finance · DeFi · Solana · data checked 2026-10-20 13:30 (Stockholm)
Contact route: on-chain security.txt (program) ↗
Not claimed Automated from public data
Produced automatically from public data on 2026-10-20 (method v0.2.6). It shows how much of this project’s control structure, code and contact information could be checked from public sources. No person selected or adjusted it, and nothing a project does or pays changes it. It is not a security audit.
Beta: the method is still being calibrated, so this automated score may contain errors. Send a correction.
Transparency score, not a security audit. Scores are generated automatically from public data (Solana RPC, OtterSec build registry, GitHub, project websites). Projects are not involved unless a page is marked “Claimed”, and claiming never changes a score. Nothing here says a project is safe. How scores are made → · Corrections, right of reply & opt-out →
- Onchain: strongest Audits; weakest Contract control; missing data in Contract control.
Something wrong on this page? Dispute a check or send a correction · opt-out. We re-run the check and correct the page.
What was checked: addresses & sources
MarBmsSgKXdrN1egZf5sqe1TMai9K1rChYNDJgjq7aD(program) — source: https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addressesmSoLzYCxHdYgdzU16g5QSh3i5K3z3KZK7ytfqcJm7So(token mint) — source: https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addresses
Website marinade.finance · GitHub marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program. Addresses are used only if they appear verbatim on an official project page.
Onchain track
Contract control weight 30 · 1 unknown15/30
- ◐ Partial
Upgrade authority MarBms…
Upgrade authority is 551FBXSXdhcRDDkdcb3ThDRg84Mwe5Zs6YjJ1EEoyzBp: Marinade multisig (Serum-multisig fork) multisig magrsHFQ… with threshold 6 of 13 voting member(s) (13 total) (established by re-deriving the vault address from the multisig; found in authority history tx wyCLBNG7…). Member independence not established. Address taken from official source: https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addressesdocs.marinade.finance ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 da665aca2aac…sha256 8fa66b8c74ff…What would show up as met
- If the program is final, revoke the upgrade authority. It then reads as immutable.
- Otherwise move the authority to a multisig or a DAO. For a multisig, use a threshold of at least 2, add a time lock, and do not keep a separate config authority that can change members without a vote.
- Publish the multisig or DAO address on your own website so the page and the on-chain account can be tied together.
How we check: We read the program’s upgrade authority on Solana (public RPC) and recognise Squads, Serum-style multisigs and SPL Governance accounts. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- ✕ Not met
Build matches source (OtterSec registry) MarBms…
OtterSec registry: 1 build submission(s) exist (https://github.com/marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program), but none matches the current on-chain program hash (db89efca1670…) — one possible reason is an upgrade after the submission. We found no registry record that the deployed code was built from the public source.OtterSec registry ↗OtterSec registry ↗GitHub ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 1f6644a50dd7…sha256 b824e94d081a…What would show up as met
- Build the program reproducibly from your public source with the Solana verifiable-build tooling (
solana-verify). - Submit the build to the registry so that it appears in the OtterSec registry (verify.osec.io). The check reads that registry; it does not rebuild anything itself.
How we check: We ask the OtterSec build registry (verify.osec.io, a third party) whether the deployed program matches a build from the public source. We report what the registry says; we do not rebuild or vouch for anything ourselves. Any registry entry that matches the program’s current on-chain hash counts, not only the registry’s default entry (method 0.2.5). This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- Build the program reproducibly from your public source with the Solana verifiable-build tooling (
- ? Unknown
Mint authority mSoLzY…
3JLPCS1qM2zRw3Dp6V4hZnYHd4toMNPkNesXdX9tg6KM: a program-derived address whose controller could not be established. The account is owned by nobody (account does not exist). Scanned 25 transactions and 34 candidate accounts: no multisig, vault or governance account re-derives to this address.. Address taken from official source: https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addressesdocs.marinade.finance ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo) checked 2026-10-20sha256 fe4ce7d688f9…sha256 3e2c932bd38a…What would show up as met
- If no more tokens will ever be minted, revoke the mint authority. It then reads as met.
- If minting must stay possible, move the authority to a multisig (threshold 2 or more, time lock) or a DAO and publish that address on your site.
How we check: We read the mint account on Solana (public RPC). This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- ✓ Met
Freeze authority mSoLzY…
Revoked. Address taken from official source: https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addressesdocs.marinade.finance ↗Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress) checked 2026-10-20sha256 fe4ce7d688f9…sha256 3e2c932bd38a…
Audits weight 1515/15
- ✓ Met
Linked audit
Document reachable; hosted by the project (own GitHub org or domain) and names an auditor (neodyme, kudelski, sec3), but the program ID is not in the page text (PDF text not parsed). Date vs. last upgrade not checked. Quality not assessed. Counted as Met (method 0.2.4): audits by at least 2 distinct firms (kudelski, neodyme, sec3) were found at official sources of the project; the program ID is not required in that case. Quality, scope and date still not assessed.
Code openness weight 1513.1/15
- ✓ Met
Public repository
marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program public, created 2021-11-15, 6 contributor(s) (count only).GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 ade66e5a80c5…sha256 38b18a4382bc… - ◐ Partial
Licence
SPDX: NOASSERTION. A licence file exists but GitHub could not match it to a standard licence (custom/source-available terms); not assessed.GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 ade66e5a80c5…sha256 38b18a4382bc…What would show up as met
- Add a standard licence file (for example Apache-2.0 or MIT) that GitHub recognises.
- Custom or source-available terms are shown as partial: we do not judge them.
How we check: We read the licence field GitHub detects. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- ✓ Met
Activity last 90 days
Last push 2026-10-14 (6 d ago).GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 ade66e5a80c5…sha256 38b18a4382bc… - ✓ Met
On-chain program source public
1/1 own program ID(s) found in public source: MarBms… in https://github.com/marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program. Repos searched (shallow clone, text search for the program ID): https://github.com/marinade-finance/liquid-staking-program. Does not prove the deployed binary matches (see the build check).
Onchain history weight 1010/10
- ✓ Met
Last deploy MarBms…
Last deploy 2026-07-16 (95 d ago).Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 da665aca2aac…sha256 8fa66b8c74ff… - ○ Not built
Program age / upgrade count MarBms…
Full history scan (first deploy, upgrades in 30 d, authority changes) needs an indexer (e.g. Helius); not available on public RPC.Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 da665aca2aac…sha256 8fa66b8c74ff…
Team & contact weight 1511.2/15
- ✕ Not met
Security contact (security.txt)
No valid security.txt at /.well-known/security.txt or /security.txt (404).What would show up as met
- Publish a text file at https://your-domain/.well-known/security.txt (or /security.txt) with a
Contact:line, for exampleContact: mailto:security@your-domain. - RFC 9116 also asks for an
Expires:line. We look only forContact:, but addExpires:too so the file stays correct.
How we check: We fetch the two standard locations over HTTPS. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- Publish a text file at https://your-domain/.well-known/security.txt (or /security.txt) with a
- ✓ Met
Bug bounty programme linked
Bug bounty link found: https://marinade.finance/blog/announcing-marinade-bug-bounty.marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 4d900af77a4b…sha256 62b6eec5bc82… - ℹ Status only
Claimed / not claimed
Status only, not scored: claiming proves control of an authority, domain or GitHub organisation and never changes a score. The status is shown in the page header.source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20 - ○ Not built
Team declared (voluntary, with consent)
Team declaration + consent flow not built — excluded.source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20 - ℹ Status only
Components declared complete by the project
Status only, not scored (it used to be scored, which made pages that are not claimed systematically lower; removed 2026-10-15). Other programs/packages may exist that were not submitted.source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20 - ✓ Met
Program embeds security.txt
1/1 own program(s) embed a solana-security-txt block with contacts (MarBms…). - ✓ Met
Official program address list
MarBms… published on project domain (https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addresses).
Legal documents weight 1010/10
- ✓ Met
Terms & privacy policy present
Terms: https://marinade.finance/terms-of-use; privacy: https://marinade.finance/privacy-policy (homepage links, sitemap.xml, common paths). Content not assessed.marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 4d900af77a4b…sha256 62b6eec5bc82… - ○ Not built
Registered legal entity
Not stated.source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20 - ✓ Met
Legal entity named in terms
Terms/privacy text names “Medium Rare Foundation” (https://marinade.finance/terms-of-use). Not checked against a company registry.
Domain weight 54.4/5
- ✓ Met
HTTPS
https://marinade.finance answered HTTP 200 over TLS.marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 4d900af77a4b…sha256 62b6eec5bc82… - ◐ Partial
Security headers
Present: HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options. Missing: X-Content-Type-Options.marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗marinade.finance ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 4d900af77a4b…sha256 62b6eec5bc82…What would show up as met
- Send these four response headers on your homepage: Strict-Transport-Security, Content-Security-Policy, X-Content-Type-Options and X-Frame-Options.
- The check looks only at whether each header is present, not how strict it is.
How we check: We read the headers of one homepage request. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- ✓ Met
Domain age
Registered 2021-03-25 (~2035 d), source: RDAP (rdap.org). Registrant data ignored. - ✓ Met
Domain ↔ components consistency
Linked: address MarBms… published on marinade.finance (https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addresses); address mSoLzY… published on marinade.finance (https://docs.marinade.finance/developers/contract-addresses); GitHub org name matches domain (weak)source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20
Snapshot hash of monitored fields: 352808b5fb860d8a
AI summaries
Generated with Grok 4.7 (xAI), Claude sonnet-5-5 (Anthropic) and GPT-6.1-sol (OpenAI) via their APIs. xAI, Anthropic and OpenAI have not reviewed, approved or sponsored Recheckable. AI-generated text; models see only extracted check results, never project-supplied text or personal names. They do not affect the score. Some text on this site (summaries and reports) is AI-generated and labelled where it appears. Scores and check results come from fixed code, not from AI. Scores are produced automatically from public data and are not reviewed by hand before they are shown; cases that the automatic checks flag are held for a person.
Template summary (deterministic)
Onchain track: band B (77/100, coverage 95 %, onchain v0.2.6). Strongest: Audits, Code openness, Onchain history, Legal documents, Domain. Weakest: —. 1 check(s) unknown (each costs 1.5 points); 0 not read (no points lost, lowers coverage); 3 not built yet (excluded).
Grok (xAI)
Placeholder — no API key configured for this model in the PoC.
Claude (Anthropic)
Placeholder — no API key configured for this model in the PoC.
GPT (OpenAI)
Placeholder — no API key configured for this model in the PoC.
Regulatory information
The project has not declared any regulated-activity types, so no rules are listed.
Law firms (free listing, alphabetical, no ranking)
- Delphi — Stockholm, Blockchain law (self-described)
- Gernandt & Danielsson — Stockholm, Fintech (self-described)
- Magnusson — Stockholm, Fintech (self-described)
- Mannheimer Swartling — Stockholm, Fintech (own practice page to be confirmed) (self-described)
- Setterwalls — Stockholm, Fintech (self-described)
- Vinge — Stockholm, MiCA (own practice page to be confirmed) (self-described)
Recheckable has no financial relationship with the listed firms and receives no fee per contact. Paid placements, if ever introduced, are marked “Ad” and never shown next to low scores.
Score history
Automated score at each published review, newest on the right. The line steps at the date of a review; between reviews the score is unchanged.
◆ 2026-10-19: the scoring method changed from v0.2.5 to v0.2.6. A score change at that point can come from the method and not from the project.
Data table
| Review | Track | Score | Grade | Coverage | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-15 | onchain | 77/100 | B | 95 % | v0.2.5 |
| 2026-10-19 | onchain | 77/100 | B | 95 % | v0.2.6 |
| 2026-10-20 | onchain | 77/100 | B | 95 % | v0.2.6 |
No check changed its result between the published reviews.
History
- 2026-10-20 13:30Forced fresh run (same result; fresh evidence snapshots): onchain B (77, coverage 95 %)
- 2026-10-19 13:32Forced fresh run (same result; fresh evidence snapshots): onchain B (77, coverage 95 %)
- 2026-10-18 08:10Method 0.2.4: audits by 2+ distinct firms at official sources count as Met; an unreadable token mint is Not read. Re-scored from the stored checks, no new data.
- 2026-10-15 10:16Method 0.2.1: the scope declaration and claim status are status-only (never scored). Re-scored from the stored checks, no new fetch. Before: C 68 (cov 90 %); after: B 70 (cov 95 %).
- 2026-10-15 07:21Initial review (operator-run): onchain C (68, coverage 90 %)
Project's own statements and reply
Does your team control the upgrade authority, official domain or GitHub organisation of this project? Claim this page (free, about a minute; it never changes a score).
For project owners: badge
Status: Active. The badge says “no changes since review”, never “safe”.
Badges are for claimed projects. The embed code is available after the page has been claimed (free, about a minute; claiming never changes the score). Claim this page
Re-checks are rate-limited (once per 10 minutes). Restoring a grey badge requires a full review.