Veda
Bounty Range
$10,000 - $1,000,000
external program
Veda
Veda is a DeFi vault primitive, which is a protocol-level mechanism for pricing, accounting, securing, optimizing, and automating capital. Designed to be non-custodial, trust-minimized, and composable, Veda empowers businesses, asset issuers, protocols, chains, wallets and applications to build enterprise-grade DeFi products without reinventing complex smart contract and offchain infrastructure.
By abstracting away the intricacies of cross-chain operations, yield optimization, and risk mitigation, Veda significantly lowers the barriers to entry for onchain finance for both consumer and institutional participants. Protocols integrating Veda can seamlessly onboard users with transparent safeguards in real time.
Veda has demonstrated consistent market leadership in the vault and curation category. Notable achievements include:
Recognized as the largest vault provider and curator in DeFi, securing over $3 billion in TVL with over 100k users
Developed the BoringVault, the most widely used vault standard across DeFi
Onboarded the first vault token, eBTC, onto Aave's main market
Distributed in Binance Web3 wallet and ByBit Web3 wallet
Veda provides rewards in USDC on Ethereum, denominated in USD.
Smart Contract
Critical
High
Mainnet assets: Reward amount is 10% of the funds directly affected up to a maximum of $1,000,000.
Minimum reward to discourage security researchers from withholding a bug report: $100,000
Reward Calculation for Critical Level Reports
For critical smart contract bugs, the reward amount is 10% of the funds directly affected up to a maximum of USD 1,000,000. The calculation of the amount of funds at risk is based on the time and date the bug report is submitted. However, a minimum reward of USD 100,000 is to be rewarded in order to incentivize security researchers against withholding a critical bug report.
"Funds directly affected" is narrowly defined as:
(1) the funds held only in the specific smart-contract instance where the vulnerability exists;
(2) Funds at risk of irreversible loss through exploitation, where the exploit is executable against the in-scope contracts as deployed on mainnet, using publicly available infrastructure and without requiring privileged access, protocol misconfiguration, or conditions not present at the time of submission.
And expressly excludes:
funds in other contracts, vaults, strategies, or positions;
theoretical or maximum mathematical drainability;
impacts resulting from exploitation of external protocols or integrations outside of the defined scope
funds accessible only via MEV, timing manipulation, or reordering assumptions;
impacts dependent on liquidity movement or oracle price conditions.
If a vulnerability affects accounting, pricing, or internal state without placing funds at imminent risk of loss in a single transaction, the bug may be reclassified to High or Medium or Low severity based on Immunefi Feasibility Limitation standards.
The minimum critical reward applies only where:
(a) The vulnerability is exploitable against the in-scope contracts as deployed on mainnet. Multi-transaction or multi-block execution shall not diminish severity classification where the researcher demonstrates that the full attack path is executable without requiring external dependencies, privileged access, or conditions not present at time of submission.
(b) The researcher demonstrates exploitability against the in-scope contracts as deployed on mainnet. Assessment of feasibility and severity shall follow Immunefi's standard rules, including Feasibility Limitations.
If these criteria are not met, the minimum reward does not apply.
Repeatable Attack Limitations
If the smart contract where the vulnerability exists can be upgraded or paused, only the initial attack will be considered for a reward. For avoidance of doubt, if mitigation is reasonably possible through pause, upgrade, parameter adjustment, or operational intervention, only the initial exploitable instance counts toward funds-at-risk.
The amount of funds at risk will be calculated with the impact of the first attack being at 100% and then a reduction of 25% from the amount of the first attack for every 3600 blocks the attack needs for subsequent attacks from the first attack, rounded down. Cumulative reward calculations apply only where repeated exploitation is realistically feasible under normal adversarial conditions and does not require MEV, builder manipulation, extreme gas tactics, or non-standard environmental assumptions.
Reward Calculation for High Level Reports
High vulnerabilities concerning theft/permanent freezing of unclaimed yield/royalties are rewarded within a range of USD 10,000 to USD 25,000 with the reward calculated based on 100% of the funds at risk, though capped at the maximum high reward.
In the event of temporary freezing, the reward doubles from the full frozen value for every additional 24h that the funds are temporarily frozen, up until a max cap of the high reward.
Reward Payment Terms
Payouts are handled by the Veda team directly and are denominated in USD. However, payments are done in USDC on Ethereum.
The calculation of the net amount rewarded is based on the average price between CoinMarketCap.com and CoinGecko.com at the time the bug report was submitted. No adjustments are made based on liquidity availability.
Responsible Publication
Veda adheres to Category 2: Notice Required. This Policy determines what information researchers are allowed to make public from their submitted bug reports.
Primacy of Impact vs Primacy of Rules
Veda adheres to the Primacy of Rules for all impacts.
Proof of Concept (PoC) Requirements
A PoC, demonstrating the bug's impact, is required for this program and has to comply with the Immunefi PoC Guidelines and Rules. Proof of concept is always required for all severities.
KYC Required
The submission of KYC information is a requirement for payout processing. Participants must adhere to the Eligibility Criteria.
Previous Audits
Veda's completed audit reports can be found at https://docs.veda.tech/audits. Any unfixed vulnerabilities mentioned in these reports are not eligible for a reward.
Smart Contract
Known Issue: The protocol is aware of potential inaccuracies in fee calculations related to yield streaming and vesting mechanics. These are known, accounted for operationally, and do not result in loss of user funds. Reports related to fee calculation precision in the accountant's vesting logic will not be eligible for reward.
Smart Contract
Known Issue: The protocol is aware that certain edge cases exist when vault.totalSupply() == 0. Reports requiring an empty vault as a precondition will not be eligible for reward.
Any testing on mainnet or public testnet deployed code; all testing should be done on local-forks of either public testnet or mainnet
Any testing with pricing oracles or third-party smart contracts
Attempting phishing or other social engineering attacks against our employees and/or customers
Any testing with third-party systems and applications (e.g. browser extensions) as well as websites (e.g. SSO providers, advertising networks)
Any denial of service attacks that are executed against project assets
Automated testing of services that generates significant amounts of traffic
Public disclosure of an unpatched vulnerability in an embargoed bounty
Any other actions prohibited by the Immunefi Rules
The project may be receiving reports that are valid (the bug and attack vector are real) and cite assets and impacts that are in scope, but there may be obstacles or barriers to executing the attack in the real world. In other words, there is a question about how feasible the attack really is. Conversely, there may also be mitigation measures that projects can take to prevent the impact of the bug, which are not feasible or would require unconventional action and hence, should not be used as reasons for downgrading a bug's severity.
Therefore, Immunefi has developed a set of feasibility limitation standards which by default states what security researchers, as well as projects, can or cannot cite when reviewing a bug report, including considerations around chain rollbacks, pre-impact bug monitoring, attack investment amounts, attacks with financial risk to the attacker, and when impactful attacks are downgraded to griefing.