Evidence register

This platform's pool metrics (APY, TVL, chain, protocol) come from the public DeFiLlama yields endpoint and are schema-validated per pool before display.

Source

DeFiLlama — DeFiLlama yields endpoint (/pools)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Citation only — not checked

Does not establish: An aggregator is a secondary reading of chain data, not on-chain proof. Divergence from a protocol's own front end is possible — which is why the cross-check against Aave and Morpho exists.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

ISO 31000:2018 sets out principles and a framework for risk management, and a process of identification, analysis, evaluation, treatment, monitoring and communication.

Source

International Organization for Standardization — ISO 31000:2018, Risk management — Guidelines (ISO 31000:2018)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Citation only — not checked

Does not establish: ISO 31000 is a guideline, not a certifiable standard — there is no such thing as certification “to ISO 31000”. The standard text is sold rather than published and was neither fetched nor read; the catalog entry could not be loaded on 2026-09-20 either, so not even the linked document's identity could be confirmed by machine. This record evidences the standard's existence and designation, no statement about its contents, and certainly no conformity on this platform's part.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

ISO/IEC 31010:2019 collects risk assessment techniques and maps them to the steps of risk identification, analysis and evaluation.

Source

International Organization for Standardization / International Electrotechnical Commission — ISO/IEC 31010:2019, Risk management — Risk assessment techniques (ISO/IEC 31010:2019)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Citation only — not checked

Does not establish: A collection of techniques says which methods exist — not which is appropriate for a DeFi market, and not that any method used here corresponds to one of them. The standard text is sold rather than published and was not fetched; as with EVD-2026-0015, the catalog entry could not be loaded on 2026-09-20.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

MiCA (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) provides the EU framework for crypto-assets and certain related services.

Source

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union / EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA), OJ L 150, 9.6.2023, p. 40–205 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1114/oj)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The regulation states what applies — not how a particular DeFi arrangement is to be classified. That classification is a case-by-case legal question.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The European Commission opened a targeted consultation on the review of MiCA on 20 May 2026; after an extension the response window ran to 30 September 2026. The responses are to feed into a report on the application of MiCA, which the Commission may accompany with a new legislative proposal if warranted. The framework is therefore explicitly under review.

Source

Europäische Kommission, GD FISMA — Targeted consultation on the review of the MiCA Regulation

Last verified

2026-10-01

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: An open consultation shows intent to review, not an outcome. Nothing about future rules follows from it. The extended deadline comes from secondary reporting rather than from the Commission page itself, which was not fetched; this record expires when the window closes and must then be gathered again.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The Bank for International Settlements places the collapse of the algorithmic stablecoin TerraUSD in its 2022 Annual Economic Report: before the collapse it was the third largest stablecoin, with a peak market capitalization of USD 18.7bn; in May 2022 its value fell from USD 1 to a few cents within days. The report also describes the contagion: the largest stablecoin briefly traded at USD 0.95 and saw outflows of over USD 10bn in the following weeks.

Source

Bank for International Settlements — BIS Annual Economic Report 2022, Chapter III: The future monetary system

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The report places a completed incident in retrospect. It says nothing about the present state of any stablecoin, evidences no statement about any other protocol, and is not a forecast. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The Financial Stability Board concludes in its report of 16 February 2023 that DeFi does not differ substantially from traditional finance in the functions it performs or the vulnerabilities to which it is exposed. The vulnerabilities it names are operational fragilities, liquidity and maturity mismatches, leverage and interconnectedness. The report also states that the crypto-assets underpinning much of DeFi lack inherent value and are highly volatile, which magnifies the impact of those vulnerabilities when they materialize.

Source

Financial Stability Board — The Financial Stability Risks of Decentralised Finance

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: A system-level assessment for a G20 body. It evidences no statement about any individual protocol, no metric for any pool and no assessment of any single position. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision sorts banks' cryptoasset exposures into groups 1a, 1b, 2a and 2b. Group 1a covers tokenized traditional assets meeting the classification conditions and group 1b stablecoins with an effective stabilization mechanism; both broadly receive the capital treatment of the underlying asset plus an infrastructure risk add-on. Group 2 covers unbacked cryptoassets and anything failing a group 1 condition, with limited hedge recognition in 2a and none in 2b. A bank's total group 2 exposure should generally stay below 1 % of Tier 1 capital and must not exceed 2 %; amounts above 1 % receive group 2b treatment.

Source

Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) — Basel Framework, SCO60: Cryptoasset exposures (Fassung in Kraft ab 2026-01-01)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The standard says how an already-made classification is to be treated for capital. It does not classify any particular asset — that is a supervisory determination in the individual case. Moreover, it applies to banks and says nothing about other vehicles. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

In the BIS Quarterly Review of December 2021, Aramonte, Huang and Schrimpf argue that centralized governance structures in DeFi are inescapable (the “decentralisation illusion”). They name the systemic risks as high leverage, which drives procyclicality in prices and volumes, and possible runs on stablecoins, which could sever links within the highly interconnected ecosystem; fire sales could spill over into the established financial system. As the natural entry point for supervision they name the governance protocols and those who exercise ownership and managerial privileges.

Source

Bank for International Settlements, BIS Quarterly Review — DeFi risks and the decentralisation illusion (Aramonte, Huang, Schrimpf)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: An argument about how the field is built, written in 2021. It evidences no statement about any particular protocol's governance today and no figure on voting distributions. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

BIS Bulletin No 69 of February 2023 examines crypto exchange apps from August 2015 to December 2022. Monthly active users grew from about 100,000 (August 2015) to more than 30 million (November 2021, with bitcoin at USD 69,000); 75 % of investors downloaded an app only after the price rose above USD 20,000 in December 2020. In nearly all economies examined, a majority of users made losses: on average USD 431 as of 15 December 2022, equal to 47.89 % of the average USD 900 invested. After the Terra/Luna and FTX events trading activity rose, with large holders selling and smaller retail investors buying. The 2022 turmoil had little discernible effect on financial conditions outside the crypto universe.

Source

Bank for International Settlements, BIS Bulletin — Crypto shocks and retail losses (BIS Bulletin No 69)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The study concerns app usage and bitcoin positions over a closed period. It evidences no statement about any DeFi pool, no return expectation and no forecast; that the 2022 turmoil had little effect outside crypto is an observation about that episode, not a property of the system. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

In BIS Papers No 156 of 15 April 2025, Aquilina, Cornelli, Frost and Gambacorta find that the underlying economic drivers do not differ from traditional finance, while DeFi poses significant challenges: new forms of information asymmetry, market inefficiencies and the risk of cryptoization in emerging markets. Among the interventions they propose are embedding rules within smart contracts and strengthening the oversight of stablecoins.

Source

Bank for International Settlements, BIS Papers — Cryptocurrencies and decentralised finance: functions and financial stability implications (BIS Papers No 156)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: A field-level analysis with policy proposals. It evidences no statement about any individual protocol, token or metric; and a proposal to supervisors is not a rule in force. Its bibliographic details were checked against independent records; the source itself was not fetched.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The Financial Stability Board published high-level recommendations for the regulation, supervision and oversight of crypto-asset activities and markets on 17 July 2023.

Source

Financial Stability Board — High-level Recommendations for the Regulation, Supervision and Oversight of Crypto-asset Activities and Markets: Final report

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: Recommendations addressed to national authorities are not law in force and are not addressed to market participants. They evidence no statement about any individual protocol. The URL was fetched on 2026-09-20 and served a document containing both declared probes — that establishes the linked document's identity, not its content: nobody has read the source.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

IOSCO published policy recommendations for decentralized finance in December 2023, covering among other things understanding DeFi arrangements and structures, achieving equivalent regulatory outcomes, identifying and managing key risks, disclosure, enforcement of applicable laws, and cross-border cooperation.

Source

International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) — Policy Recommendations for Decentralized Finance (DeFi), Final Report

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Citation only — not checked

Does not establish: These recommendations come from IOSCO rather than the Financial Stability Board — the two bodies are routinely confused on this point. They address securities regulators, are not law in force, and evidence no statement about any individual protocol. The report number in the URL is unchecked and now doubtful: the 2026-09-20 fetch returned no document, while EVD-2026-0019 on the same host served its own in the same run. Access protection does not explain that difference; some servers refuse a path that does not exist rather than reporting it as missing. Title, body and month are this record's dependable parts — until somebody opens the report itself, the file URL is a guess.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

IOSCO published policy recommendations for crypto and digital asset markets in November 2023, covering among other things conflicts of interest, market manipulation, custody, cross-border risks, operational and technological risks, and retail distribution.

Source

International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) — Policy Recommendations for Crypto and Digital Asset Markets, Final Report

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: Recommendations addressed to securities regulators, not law in force. They largely concern centralized intermediaries and do not transfer straightforwardly to an arrangement with no identifiable entity. The URL was fetched on 2026-09-20 and served a document containing both declared probes, which confirms the report number. What is established is the document's identity, not its content — nobody has read the source.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) governs ICT risk management requirements, digital operational resilience and ICT third-party providers for EU financial entities, and applies from 17 January 2025.

Source

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union / EUR-Lex — Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 on digital operational resilience for the financial sector (DORA), OJ L 333, 27.12.2022 (ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2554/oj)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: DORA binds supervised financial entities, not DeFi protocols. Whether a particular dependency would count as an ICT third-party service within the regulation's meaning is a case-by-case legal question and does not follow from this record. The URL was fetched on 2026-09-20 and served a document containing both declared probes, which establishes that the ELI link serves the named act — not that anyone has read it.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The research literature describes DeFi as a multidimensional field spanning financial economics, technology, market structure, governance and risk — with explicitly named knowledge gaps.

Source

Electronic Markets (Springer) — A multivocal literature review of decentralized finance: Current knowledge and future research avenues (10.1007/s12525-023-00637-4)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: A literature review maps a research field — it evidences no claim about any individual protocol or its current figures.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

Spacing and retrieval practice show robust learning advantages over rereading and massed study.

Source

Nature Reviews Psychology — The science of effective learning with spacing and retrieval practice (10.1038/s44159-022-00089-1)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: Evidences the effectiveness of the method, not the factual accuracy of any particular lesson in this Academy.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

Retrieval practice consistently benefits learning in applied classroom settings, with feedback playing an important role.

Source

Educational Psychology Review (Springer) — Retrieval Practice Consistently Benefits Student Learning: a Systematic Review of Applied Research in Schools and Classrooms (10.1007/s10648-021-09595-9)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The reviewed settings are schools and classrooms; transfer to adult professional learners is plausible but not what this review measured.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

Smart contracts have identifiable limits — notably around external data, legal enforceability and the functions intermediaries perform.

Source

Annual Review of Financial Economics — Smart Contracts and Decentralized Finance (10.1146/annurev-financial-110921-022806)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: A review article describes mechanisms and limits in general — it assesses no specific contract and replaces no code audit.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

The emergence and use of smart contract audits is itself an object of empirical research; the existence of an audit is a finding, not proof of safety.

Source

Review of Accounting Studies (Springer) — Decentralized Finance (DeFi) assurance: early evidence (10.1007/s11142-024-09834-8)

Last verified

2026-09-19

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: Early evidence on a developing assurance market — no statement about the quality of any particular audit provider or report.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

In a review of ten learning techniques, practice testing (retrieval) and distributed practice receive the highest utility rating; elaborative interrogation, self-explanation and interleaving a moderate one; rereading, highlighting and summarizing a low one.

Source

Psychological Science in the Public Interest (SAGE), Vol. 14(1), pp. 4–58 — Improving Students’ Learning With Effective Learning Techniques: Promising Directions From Cognitive and Educational Psychology (10.1177/1529100612453266)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The ratings rest on studies with school and university students on academic material. They say nothing about whether this Academy implements the techniques correctly or whether its content is factually right.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

An overview of meta-analyses on the design of learning material finds small to moderate learning benefits for words with a matching graphic, for placing text and picture close together, for signaling the structure, for segmenting into parts and for leaving out decorative detail.

Source

Review of Educational Research (SAGE), Vol. 92(3), pp. 413–454 — Multimedia Design for Learning: An Overview of Reviews With Meta-Meta-Analysis (10.3102/00346543211052329)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The underlying studies are mostly short learning units in laboratories or classrooms; effects are small on average and depend on prior knowledge and material. What is evidenced is the design direction, not the effect of any particular graphic in this Academy.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

A meta-analysis of 181 studies from Mayer's multimedia research (1990–2022) finds on average a small to moderate advantage for the design principles studied (g ≈ 0.37 per the abstract), largest for removing seductive detail, for words plus pictures and for self-explanation — with effects declining slightly over the years.

Source

Educational Research Review (Elsevier), Vol. 49, 100730 — A meta-analysis of Richard Mayer's multimedia learning research: Searching for boundary conditions of design principles across multiple media types (10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100730)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: The effect sizes come from the abstract; nobody here has read the full text. The studies come from a single research group and are mostly short and laboratory-based. What is not evidenced is that any particular principle makes a measurable difference in this Academy.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.

Novices who study worked examples instead of solving equivalent problems themselves need less time and make fewer errors on subsequent problems — the worked-example effect, originally shown on algebra problems.

Source

Cognition and Instruction (Taylor & Francis), Vol. 2(1), pp. 59–89 — The Use of Worked Examples as a Substitute for Problem Solving in Learning Algebra (10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3)

Last verified

2026-09-20

Verification

Details checked — title, publisher, date and identifier against independent records; URL not fetched

Does not establish: Shown with school students on algebra problems. Later research finds the advantage shrinks or reverses as prior knowledge grows; for advanced readers of this Academy it is therefore not assumed without qualification.

Nobody has read this source. The details above concern its identity, not its content.