Parcl
parcl.co · Other · Solana · data checked 2026-10-20 22:25 (Stockholm)
Contact route: on-chain security.txt (program) ↗
Not claimed Automated from public data
Produced automatically from public data on 2026-10-20 (method v0.2.7). 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 Legal documents; weakest Contract control; missing data in Code openness, Team & contact.
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
3parcLrT7WnXAcyPfkCz49oofuuf2guUKkjuFkAhZW8Y(program) — source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesPaRCLKPpkfHQfXTruT8yhEUx5oRNH8z8erBnzEerc8a(program) — source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesDi9ZVJeJrRZdQEWzAFYmfjukjR5dUQb7KMaDmv34rNJg(program) — source: https://docs.parcl.co/addresses2gWf5xLAzZaKX9tQj9vuXsaxTWtzTZDFRn21J3zjNVgu(program) — source: https://docs.parcl.co/addresses5tu3xkmLfud5BAwSuQke4WSjoHcQ52SbrPwX9es8j6Ve(program) — source: https://docs.parcl.co/addresses
Website parcl.co · GitHub https://github.com/ParclFinance. Addresses are used only if they appear verbatim on an official project page.
Programs taken from the project's own official address list or repository (process v1, docs/program-discovery-process.md); each exists on mainnet as an executable program.
Onchain track
Contract control weight 307.5/30
- ◐ Partial
Upgrade authority 3parcL…
Upgrade authority is EkTyBhV2evLGhn4fdeuuT7ZyFu8eN4Hqpo8HEJCjEvTo: Squads v3 multisig 7qCHZqcb… with threshold 3 of 3 voting member(s) (3 total) (established by re-deriving the vault address from the multisig; found in upgrade history tx 4ASk1VHC…). Member independence not established. Address taken from official source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesdocs.parcl.co ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 3f3d3ef3bef3…sha256 4ae0ce8b82bf…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) 3parcL…
OtterSec registry answered: no build was ever submitted for this program (no submission).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 (
- ◐ Partial
Upgrade authority PaRCLK…
Upgrade authority is EkTyBhV2evLGhn4fdeuuT7ZyFu8eN4Hqpo8HEJCjEvTo: Squads v3 multisig 7qCHZqcb… with threshold 3 of 3 voting member(s) (3 total) (established by re-deriving the vault address from the multisig; found in upgrade history tx 3vzStBrF…). Member independence not established. Address taken from official source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesdocs.parcl.co ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 e8a75578765b…sha256 8a151e90410b…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) PaRCLK…
OtterSec registry answered: no build was ever submitted for this program (no submission).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 (
- ◐ Partial
Upgrade authority Di9ZVJ…
Upgrade authority is GKKZmEPuhowYTQcAXBUZtRMn6tXN74t2c51RAvK3aYTL: Squads v3 multisig HYYnVvrg… with threshold 3 of 3 voting member(s) (3 total) (established by re-deriving the vault address from the multisig; found in upgrade history tx 5vd68eqj…). Member independence not established. Address taken from official source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesdocs.parcl.co ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 e5a6d4a1462f…sha256 30380b70ba3a…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) Di9ZVJ…
OtterSec registry answered: no build was ever submitted for this program (no submission).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 (
- ◐ Partial
Upgrade authority 2gWf5x…
Upgrade authority is GKKZmEPuhowYTQcAXBUZtRMn6tXN74t2c51RAvK3aYTL: Squads v3 multisig HYYnVvrg… with threshold 3 of 3 voting member(s) (3 total) (established by re-deriving the vault address from the multisig; found in upgrade history tx 52TakW5B…). Member independence not established. Address taken from official source: https://docs.parcl.co/addressesdocs.parcl.co ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 4e2e3f2816ef…sha256 3028d36138f9…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) 2gWf5x…
OtterSec registry answered: no build was ever submitted for this program (no submission).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 (
- – N/A
Shared program 5tu3xk… (Merkle Distributor)
Shared program maintained by others (its on-chain security.txt points to ?). Shown for information; not scored for Parcl (program-discovery-process v1).Explorer ↗ checked 2026-10-20 - – N/A
Mint/freeze authority
No token mint submitted.source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20
Audits weight 157.5/15
- ◐ Partial
Audits found at official sources
Discovered automatically (method 0.2.2): page https://docs.parcl.co/security names OtterSec. Rated partial: found at the project's own GitHub organisation or website and naming OtterSec, but the program ID was not found in the readable text (PDF text is parsed when possible). Date vs. last upgrade not checked. Quality, scope and findings not assessed. Searched: GitHub ParclFinance: 4 of 4 non-fork repositories file-listed via GitHub API | parcl.co: 18 audit/security page address(es) fetched (docs sub-domains and homepage audit links included).What would show up as met
- Link each audit report from an official page: your docs, your website or an audits folder in your GitHub repository.
- Tell us the page through the corrections form so it can be added. The check only confirms that the document is reachable. It does not assess the audit’s quality or whether it covers the current code.
How we check: Audit links come from official pages found for the project, not from a search of the web. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
Code openness weight 15 · 1 not read10/15
- ✓ Met
Public repository
ParclFinance/v3-sdk-ts public, created 2024-01-24, 2 contributor(s) (count only).GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 f46439aafd45…sha256 f8793d8a7042… - ✓ Met
Licence
SPDX: MIT.GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 f46439aafd45…sha256 f8793d8a7042… - ✕ Not met
Activity last 90 days
Last push 2025-07-11 (466 d ago), latest across the ParclFinance organisation's non-fork repositories.GitHub ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗api.github.com ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 f46439aafd45…sha256 f8793d8a7042…What would show up as met
- A push within the last 90 days reads as met, 91 to 365 days as partial. Nothing to configure: this follows normal maintenance of the public repository.
How we check: We read the date of the last push on GitHub. 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 read
On-chain program source public
Program ID not found in the submitted repo or the security.txt source_code repo. Source may exist elsewhere — counted as unknown, not as closed. Repos searched (shallow clone, text search for the program ID): https://github.com/https://github.com/ParclFinance (clone failed), https://github.com/ParclFinance/parcl-v3 (clone failed). Does not prove the deployed binary matches (see the build check). (reason: unreadable)What would show up as met
Nothing for the project to do. Our checker could not read the source this time, so the check is “Not read”: no points are lost. It is tried again at the next run. If you think the data behind it is wrong, send a correction.
Onchain history weight 108.8/10
- ◐ Partial
Last deploy 3parcL…
Last deploy 2026-10-02 (18 d ago). Upgraded within the last 30 days.Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 3f3d3ef3bef3…sha256 4ae0ce8b82bf…What would show up as met
- Nothing to configure: a deploy more than 30 days ago reads as met, a more recent deploy as partial because the code changed recently.
How we check: We read the last deploy time on Solana. 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 built
Program age / upgrade count 3parcL…
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 3f3d3ef3bef3…sha256 4ae0ce8b82bf… - ✓ Met
Last deploy PaRCLK…
Last deploy 2023-01-31 (1358 d ago).Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 e8a75578765b…sha256 8a151e90410b… - ○ Not built
Program age / upgrade count PaRCLK…
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 e8a75578765b…sha256 8a151e90410b… - ✓ Met
Last deploy Di9ZVJ…
Last deploy 2024-07-03 (839 d ago).Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 e5a6d4a1462f…sha256 30380b70ba3a… - ○ Not built
Program age / upgrade count Di9ZVJ…
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 e5a6d4a1462f…sha256 30380b70ba3a… - ✓ Met
Last deploy 2gWf5x…
Last deploy 2024-07-03 (839 d ago).Explorer ↗RPC call (getAccountInfo)RPC call (getSignaturesForAddress)RPC call (getTransaction) checked 2026-10-20sha256 4e2e3f2816ef…sha256 3028d36138f9… - ○ Not built
Program age / upgrade count 2gWf5x…
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 4e2e3f2816ef…sha256 3028d36138f9…
Team & contact weight 15 · 1 unknown7.5/15
- ✕ 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
- ? Unknown
Bug bounty programme linked
No bug-bounty link found on homepage (raw + rendered), sitemap or security.txt. Not checked deeper (docs sites, Immunefi search) — counted as unknown, not as missing. Also checked: Immunefi public list: no active programme matched; 3parcL… security.txt has a disclosure contact (support@parcl.digital) but no bounty; no on-chain security.txt in PaRCLK…; no on-chain security.txt in Di9ZVJ…; no on-chain security.txt in 2gWf5x….parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 38ce99984c53…sha256 b05192f06590…What would show up as met
- Link your bug bounty (for example an Immunefi, HackerOne or Cantina page, or a /bug-bounty page of your own) from the homepage, the sitemap or your security.txt.
- “Unknown” here means we found no link. It does not mean you have no programme.
How we check: We look at the homepage links (also as rendered in a browser), sitemap.xml and security.txt, and at Immunefi’s public list for on-chain security.txt names. This is what the check looks for. It makes no promise about a score or grade, and claiming or paying never changes a score.
- 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 - ◐ Partial
Program embeds security.txt
1/4 own program(s) embed a solana-security-txt block with contacts (3parcL…). Shared programs excluded: 5tu3xk….What would show up as met
- Embed a security.txt block in the program with the
solana-security-txtcrate: name, project_url, contacts and policy. Redeploy to publish it. - This also tells us which programs belong to you, and which are shared programs that do not.
How we check: We read the program 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.
- Embed a security.txt block in the program with the
- ✓ Met
Official program address list
3parcL… published on project domain (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); PaRCLK… published on project domain (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); Di9ZVJ… published on project domain (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); 2gWf5x… published on project domain (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); 5tu3xk… published on project domain (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses).
Legal documents weight 1010/10
- ✓ Met
Terms & privacy policy present
Terms: https://parcl.co/legal/terms-of-use; privacy: https://parcl.co/legal/privacy-policy (homepage links, sitemap.xml, common paths). Content not assessed.parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 38ce99984c53…sha256 b05192f06590… - ○ 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 “Use PARCL LABS, LLC” (https://parcl.co/legal/terms-of-use). Not checked against a company registry.
Domain weight 54.4/5
- ✓ Met
HTTPS
https://parcl.co answered HTTP 200 over TLS.parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 38ce99984c53…sha256 b05192f06590… - ◐ Partial
Security headers
Present: HSTS, X-Frame-Options. Missing: CSP, X-Content-Type-Options.parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 38ce99984c53…sha256 b05192f06590…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
Registry date unavailable (rdap.org: HTTP 404; IANA RDAP bootstrap: no RDAP server for .co; whois: FileNotFoundError (port 43 likely blocked)). Domain demonstrably in use since at least 2018-08-08 (~2995 d), source: Wayback Machine first capture – a lower bound on age.web.archive.org ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗parcl.co ↗ checked 2026-10-20sha256 38ce99984c53…sha256 b05192f06590… - ✓ Met
Domain ↔ components consistency
Linked: address 3parcL… published on parcl.co (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); address PaRCLK… published on parcl.co (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); address Di9ZVJ… published on parcl.co (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); address 2gWf5x… published on parcl.co (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); address 5tu3xk… published on parcl.co (https://docs.parcl.co/addresses); GitHub org name matches domain (weak)source: calculated from the other checks checked 2026-10-20
Snapshot hash of monitored fields: b709c7994f8ca958
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 C (54/100, coverage 93 %, onchain v0.2.7). Strongest: Onchain history, Legal documents, Domain. Weakest: Contract control. 1 check(s) unknown (each costs 1.5 points); 1 not read (no points lost, lowers coverage); 6 not built yet (excluded).
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.
Solid line: offchain track. Dashed line: onchain track. ◆ = the method changed at that review.
◆ 2026-10-17: the scoring method changed from v0.2.1 to v0.2.5. A score change at that point can come from the method and not from the project.
◆ 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.
◆ 2026-10-20: the scoring method changed from v0.2.6 to v0.2.7. A score change at that point can come from the method and not from the project.
Data table
| Review | Track | Score | Grade | Coverage | Method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-10-16 | offchain | 83/100 | B | 75 % | v0.2.1 |
| 2026-10-16 | onchain | 47/100 | D | 93 % | v0.2.1 |
| 2026-10-17 | onchain | 54/100 | C | 93 % | v0.2.5 |
| 2026-10-19 | onchain | 54/100 | C | 93 % | v0.2.6 |
| 2026-10-20 | onchain | 54/100 | C | 93 % | v0.2.6 |
| 2026-10-20 | onchain | 54/100 | C | 93 % | v0.2.7 |
Check changes between reviews
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority 3parcL…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Last deploy 3parcL…: Met → Partial method changed Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority PaRCLK…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority Di9ZVJ…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority 2gWf5x…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority 3parcL…: N/A → Partial docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Last deploy 3parcL…: Met → Partial Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority PaRCLK…: N/A → Partial docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority Di9ZVJ…: N/A → Partial docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-20 · onchain Upgrade authority 2gWf5x…: N/A → Partial docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-19 · onchain Upgrade authority 3parcL…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-19 · onchain Last deploy 3parcL…: Met → Partial method changed Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-19 · onchain Upgrade authority PaRCLK…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-19 · onchain Upgrade authority Di9ZVJ…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-19 · onchain Upgrade authority 2gWf5x…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Upgrade authority 3parcL…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Last deploy 3parcL…: Met → Partial method changed Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Upgrade authority PaRCLK…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Upgrade authority Di9ZVJ…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Upgrade authority 2gWf5x…: N/A → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗ Explorer ↗
- 2026-10-17 · onchain Audits found at official sources: Not met → Partial method changed docs.parcl.co ↗
History
- 2026-10-20 22:25Forced fresh run (same result; fresh evidence snapshots): onchain C (54, coverage 93 %)
- 2026-10-20 16:04Forced fresh run (same result; fresh evidence snapshots): onchain C (54, coverage 93 %)
- 2026-10-19 14:06Forced fresh run (same result; fresh evidence snapshots): onchain C (54, coverage 93 %)
- 2026-10-17 06:25Nightly re-run: onchain C (54, coverage 93 %)
- 2026-10-16 14:31Nightly re-run: onchain D (47, coverage 93 %)
- 2026-10-16 13:01Initial automatic review (indexed): offchain B (83, coverage 75 %)
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.