Tydro

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

Tydro is a non-custodial lending protocol on Ink built from Aave’s codebase. TVL was $55.7M in the DefiLlama API read on 2026-08-15, below the $100M materiality line, and size alone rejects it: one practice advising 100 households moves $1M to $8M into a venue on the same research, and at this size that book becomes the exit crush, whatever the protocol’s quality.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• TVL sustained above $100M for 30 days
• A reproducible source-mapping correction shows protocol-level TVL already exceeds the threshold

The research file

Mechanism applicability

Tydro identifies itself as an Aave-derived, non-custodial lending market on Ink. Suppliers deposit supported assets and receive interest funded by borrowers, while borrowers must maintain overcollateralized positions and may be liquidated below the configured health threshold. That establishes the protocol and lending-market perimeter needed for this class application; it does not underwrite any reserve, collateral asset or borrow position.

Current observation and scope

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $55.7M of Tydro TVL on Ink, up from the prior $38.0M observation but still below the v1 dossier’s $100M capacity threshold. Current Tydro documentation continues to describe the live supplier and borrower market. Reserve caps, utilization, borrower concentration, collateral parameters, oracle configuration, administrators, deployed-code correspondence, audit remediation and incident history remain deferred rather than presumed safe.

Exit applicability

Tydro states that a supplier can withdraw accrued principal only to the extent the reserve has sufficient unborrowed underlying liquidity; a borrower using the supplied asset as collateral must also remain above the required health factor. The protocol separately identifies smart-contract, oracle, collateral and network risks. Those facts make TVL a generous capacity proxy rather than executable exit liquidity and support applying the capacity screen before a reserve-level review.

Why the shared dossier decides

The v1 below-materiality dossier rejects Tydro on current capacity without making a protocol-quality judgment. Reopen only after the same reproducible survey perimeter sustains at least $100M for 30 consecutive days or a documented mapping correction proves the survey incomplete. A reopened file must then test each contemplated market’s liquidity, utilization, collateral and oracle design, governance and emergency powers, audits and incidents, and stressed supplier withdrawals; crossing the threshold would trigger review, not approval.

Sources

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

• Tydro Docs — protocol overview · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: Aave-derived lending, Ink deployment, supplier interest, overcollateralized borrowing
• Tydro Docs — supplier withdrawals · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: unborrowed liquidity, withdrawal limit, health factor, collateral constraint
• Tydro Docs — protocol risks · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: smart-contract risk, oracle risk, collateral risk, network risk
• DefiLlama — Tydro survey record, read 2026-08-15 · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, Ink, lending category, survey perimeter

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.