2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
Claim ID | Cover ID | Project | Claim Amount | Purchase Date | Claim Submitted | Verdict | Notes | Year |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
V2 #24 | 1369 | Goldfinch | 2024-10-09 11:11 | 2025-02-02 14:37 | Denied | The claimant provided onchain proof of loss, which claim assessors reviewed and discussed along with the submitted incident details in the claim submission. Assessors discussed this claim request on the governance forum, where they concluded that no loss of funds due to any of the covered terms occurred. The loss in question was due to a loan default on an uncollateralized loan issued from Goldfinch’s senior pool. Assessor’s noted that Protocol Cover does not cover credit risk, and Goldfinch’s documentation noted that Protocol Cover did not provide protections for credit risk. Assessors concluded in their discussion on the forum that this claim was not valid and no votes were cast to approve this claim request, which resulted in a deny outcome. | 2025 | |
V2 #25 | 1369 | Goldfinch | 2024-10-09 11:11 | 2025-02-08 22:42 | Denied | The claimant who submitted Claim V2 #24 re-submitted their claim with the same details included in their previous claim submission. Assessors discussed this on the forum where they concluded that no new information was provided and this claim was not valid. No votes were cast to approve this claim request, which resulted in a deny outcome. | 2025 | |
V2 #26 | 2704 | Arcadia | 2025-07-11 22:23 | 2025-07-29 19:46 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. Claim assessors calculated the loss amount for this claim and verified this amount with the OpenCover team, as well. The claimant did purchase cover before the exploit occured; their cover was acfive at the time of loss; and the loss event did meet the criteria outlined in the Single Protocol Cover wording. After careful review and discussion on the governance forum, claim assessors voted to approve this claim after validating the loss onchain. | 2025 | |
V2 #27 | 2705 | Arcadia | 2025-07-11 22:30 | 2025-07-29 20:08 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. Claim assessors calculated the loss amount for this claim and verified this amount with the OpenCover team, as well. The claimant did purchase cover before the exploit occured; their cover was acfive at the time of loss; and the loss event did meet the criteria outlined in the Single Protocol Cover wording. After careful review and discussion on the governance forum, claim assessors voted to approve this claim after validating the loss onchain. | 2025 | |
V2 #28 | 2620 | Arcadia | 2025-06-26 09:44 | 2025-07-29 20:39 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. Claim assessors calculated the loss amount for this claim and verified this amount with the OpenCover team, as well. The claimant did purchase cover before the exploit occured; their cover was acfive at the time of loss; and the loss event did meet the criteria outlined in the Single Protocol Cover wording. After careful review and discussion on the governance forum, claim assessors voted to approve this claim after validating the loss onchain. | 2025 | |
V2 #29 | 2946 | Beefy | 2025-08-19 18:06 | 2025-11-18 11:28 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. After reviewing the incident details and evidence provided and comparing it against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms, the Claims Committee determined this claim submission was valid. The claimant had funds deposited into the Beefy Silo (Valamore) Vault, which was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. The Beefy Vault provided USDC lending liquidity to the xUSD/USDC market and bad debt has accrued due to the impairment of xUSD. Because a fixed-rate oracle was used in that market, lenders were unable to withdraw and had suffered an unrealized loss. Silo was included in the Annex that was active when the claimant purchased their cover, this claim was valid and the Claims Committee voted to approve this claim. | 2025 | |
V2 #30 | 3420 | Beefy | 2025-11-02 13:10 | 2025-11-18 12:31 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. After reviewing the incident details and evidence provided and comparing it against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms, the Claims Committee determined this claim submission was valid. The claimant had funds deposited into the Beefy Silo (Valamore) Vault, which was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. The Beefy Vault provided USDC lending liquidity to the xUSD/USDC market and bad debt has accrued due to the impairment of xUSD. Because a fixed-rate oracle was used in that market, lenders were unable to withdraw and had suffered an unrealized loss. Silo was included in the Annex that was active when the claimant purchased their cover, this claim was valid and the Claims Committee voted to approve this claim. | 2025 | |
V2 #31 | 3305 | Harvest Finance | 2025-10-10 15:05 | 2025-11-18 20:43 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. After reviewing the incident details and evidence provided and comparing it against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms, the Claims Committee determined this claim submission was valid. The claimant had funds deposited into the Harvest Finance Autopool Vault, which was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. The Autopool vault allocate USDC liquidity to the MEV Capital and Valamore Silo markets, which allocated lending liquidity to xUSD/USDC markets. Bad debt had accrued due to the impairment of xUSD. Because a fixed-rate oracle was used in these markets, lenders were unable to withdraw and had suffered an unrealized loss. Silo was included in the Annex that was active when the claimant purchased their cover, this claim was valid and the Claims Committee voted to approve this claim. | 2025 | |
V2 #32 | 3306 | Beefy | 2025-10-10 15:06 | 2025-11-18 20:49 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. After reviewing the incident details and evidence provided and comparing it against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms, the Claims Committee determined this claim submission was valid. The claimant had funds deposited into the Beefy Silo (Valamore) Vault, which was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. The Beefy Vault provided USDC lending liquidity to the xUSD/USDC market and bad debt has accrued due to the impairment of xUSD. Because a fixed-rate oracle was used in that market, lenders were unable to withdraw and had suffered an unrealized loss. Silo was included in the Annex that was active when the claimant purchased their cover, this claim was valid and the Claims Committee voted to approve this claim. | 2025 | |
V2 #33 | 3296 | Blue Chip Euler v2 Markets & Vaults | 2025-10-08 10:14 | 2025-11-18 20:57 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. The claimant had a leveraged position in the MEV Capital Sonic Cluster in Euler v2, where they deposited WETH into the MEV Capital Sonic Cluster WETH Vault and used that WETH as collateral to borrow scETH in the WETH/scETH market in the MEV Capital Sonic Cluster. The claimant could not withdraw their WETH because the assets used to borrow the WETH in those markets was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. Bad debt had occurred and an unrealized loss had occurred because fixed-rate oracles were used. The impaired assets in question were related to Treevee (formerly Rings), whose scETH snd scUSD assets were 93% exposed to Stream Finance. These vaults and markets were included in the Annex at the time the cover was purchased. The Claims Committee compared this evidence against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms and determined this claim was valid. | 2025 | |
V2 #34 | 3256 | Rings | 2025-10-03 9:56 | 2025-11-19 15:10 | Approved | The claimant provided onchain proof of loss and a summary of the loss event, which the Claims Committee compared against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms. The claimant held scUSD, which was 93% backed by USDC lending positions in permissionless Euler v2 markets where xUSD was used as collateral to borrow the USDC. Euler Finance v2 was included in the Annex at the time the cover was purchased and the claimant did suffer an unrealized loss because the underlying assets cannot be withdrawn from these Euler markets. After reviewing all of the evidence provided, the Claims Committee determined this claim was valid and voted to approve this claim. | 2025 | |
V2 #35 | 3411 | Beefy | 2025-10-30 14:18 | 2025-12-01 19:31 | Approved | OpenCover filed this claim on behalf of the claimant, who originally purchased their cover through OpenCover. Onchain proof of loss was provided along with the incident details for this claim. After reviewing the incident details and evidence provided and comparing it against the Multi Protocol Cover Terms, the Claims Committee determined this claim submission was valid. The claimant had funds deposited into the Beefy Silo (Valamore) Vault, which was impacted by the Stream Finance blow up. The Beefy Vault provided USDC lending liquidity to the xUSD/USDC market and bad debt has accrued due to the impairment of xUSD. Because a fixed-rate oracle was used in that market, lenders were unable to withdraw and had suffered an unrealized loss. Silo was included in the Annex that was active when the claimant purchased their cover, this claim was valid and the Claims Committee voted to approve this claim. | 2025 |