EVAA Protocol

Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.

EVAA is a lending market on TON where users lend and borrow assets against pooled collateral without a central intermediary. At the August 15, 2026 survey it held $9.65M on TON, well under our $100M materiality line. An advised position at that size would be a large share of the venue’s liquidity, and exiting it would move the market it sits in. Rejected on size: one practice advising 100 households moves $1M to $8M into a venue on the same research, and below $100M TVL that book becomes the exit crush, whatever the protocol’s quality. The file reopens if TVL grows past the threshold and holds there.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• Independently reproducible supplied TVL sustains at least $100M for 30 days, triggering market-level lending and TON review

The research file

Mechanism and class applicability

EVAA identifies itself as a TON lending protocol, and its published contract repository records positive user principal as deposits and negative principal as debt while asset state tracks supply and borrow rates. The current lending mechanism would require market-level underwriting at scale; supplied capital remains below the shared v1 materiality floor.

Current observation and perimeter

The DefiLlama API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $9.65M supplied and $4.97M borrowed, all on TON, and classified EVAA as lending. The official site and audited contract repository likewise identify TON as the deployment, so the stored single-chain perimeter remains current.

Control, loss and exit applicability

The contract repository exposes mutable asset configuration and rate state plus separate master and user contracts, and EVAA publishes liquidation-bot code. A lender exit therefore depends on contract operation and available pool liquidity; depositor loss can arise from collateral decline, pricing or rate-state errors, failed liquidations and TON execution. The v8 repository links a Trail of Bits review and the older v6 Quantstamp review, but audit completion is not a loss guarantee.

Why the class rule decides

The shared v1 below-materiality dossier controls at approximately $9.65M supplied TVL and does not approve EVAA’s lending design or TON. Reopen after independently reproducible supplied TVL sustains at least $100M for 30 days, then review each market for assets, utilization and cash, collateral and prices, authority and pauses, deployed-versus-audited code, incidents and bad debt, fees and incentives, TON dependencies and proposed-size stressed withdrawal.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• EVAA — official protocol site · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: TON lending identity, lending and borrowing, protocol perimeter
• EVAA GitHub — audited contracts repository · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: TON contracts, deposit and debt accounting, rate state, asset configuration, audit versions, liquidation tooling
• Quantstamp — EVAA v6 certificate · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: v6 audit, review scope, historical security evidence
• DefiLlama — EVAA Protocol survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current supplied TVL, current borrowed amount, TON-only perimeter, lending category

Inherited controls

The verdict above grades the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The least safe layer sets the position’s grade, and the position table names which one that is.