Aevo Review
Fees, funding and liquidation terms published as figures
of 10
Aevo scores 6.0 among perpetual DEXs because it publishes its fees, hourly funding formula, liquidation tiers and margin levels as numbers. Its closed off-chain core pulls the score down most, and its Veridise and Spearbit audit reports sit in GitHub without any mention in the docs. The marks come from desk research of Aevo's documentation and GitHub, checked November 1, 2026.
Overall score
6.0 = (8 + 8 + 2 + 5 + 7) / 5; seventh of nine perpetual DEXs
Perp fees
0.08% taker, 0.05% maker on notional (standard tier)
Funding
Paid hourly; premium index plus clamped 0.01% interest term
Liquidation fee
1% tier-1 perps, 3% tier-2, 5% pre-launch, 0.5% options
ETH perp margin
5% initial (20x max), 3% maintenance
Audits
Veridise (Oct 2023, draft) and Spearbit (Oct 2022) on GitHub; not in docs
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 8.0 + 2.0 + 5.0 + 7.0) ÷ 5 = 6.0.
Pros
- Standard perpetuals fees published as 0.08% taker and 0.05% maker on notional (fee mark 8)
- Hourly funding with the full formula, clamp and per-asset caps documented
- Liquidation fees listed as 1%, 3% and 5% by tier, with margins stated per contract
- Liquidation sequence, insurance-fund step and ADL ranking formula all written out (risk mark 7)
Cons
- Off-chain matching and risk engine; only SDKs and tooling are public code (licence mark 2)
- Audit reports by Veridise (2023, marked draft) and Spearbit (2022) sit only in GitHub repositories; the docs name no auditor (audit mark 5)
- Insurance fund size and funding source are not disclosed
- Fee tiers beyond the standard rate are not listed, and a notice says fees will change
How Aevo scores in perpetual DEXs
This entry rates Aevo's perpetual futures market in our perpetual DEX ranking. Aevo matches orders off-chain and settles them on its own rollup. Its options and pre-launch markets come up only where they affect the perpetuals terms. The basis is desk research of Aevo's documentation and its public GitHub organizations, checked on November 1, 2026. No account was opened and no trade was placed. The category uses five equally weighted criteria, each marked 0 to 10, as described in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | What the documentation shows | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| Fee transparency | Standard perpetuals fees are 0.08% taker and 0.05% maker on notional. Further tiers are mentioned but not tabled. | 8 |
| Funding & liquidation clarity | Funding is paid hourly, with the formula, clamp and per-asset caps published. Liquidation fees are 1%, 3% or 5% by tier. The ETH perp lists 5% initial and 3% maintenance margin. | 8 |
| Licence & code openness | The order book and risk engine run off-chain. No public exchange-contract repository with a licence file was found, and only SDKs and tooling are open. | 2 |
| Audit disclosure | The docs name no auditor. Aevo's GitHub audit repositories hold a Veridise report "for Aevo Exchange" dated October 18, 2023 (marked draft) and a Spearbit security review of Ribbon Finance dated October 7, 2022. | 5 |
| Risk documentation | Documents a step-by-step liquidation process, an insurance-fund backstop and auto-deleveraging (ADL) with its ranking formula. The fund's size and source are not given. | 7 |
The overall score is the plain average: (8 + 8 + 2 + 5 + 7) ÷ 5 = 30 ÷ 5 = 6.0. On the current peer scores, that puts Aevo seventh of nine in the category. One mark changed at this check. Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 5 after the reports in Aevo's official GitHub audit repositories were opened and found to name Veridise and Spearbit, with dates. The mark stops at 5 because Aevo's own documentation still does not mention or link them.
Strongest criteria: trading terms in numbers
Fee transparency (8)
The perpetuals fees page gives the entry-tier rates directly: 0.08% of notional for takers and 0.05% for makers. A $10,000 market order that takes liquidity pays $8 before any discount. The funding page states that Aevo charges no fee on funding payments. The mark stops at 8 for two reasons. The page says "multiple fee tiers are available" without listing them, and a banner says standard fees "will soon get reduced" under governance proposal AGP-3.
Funding & liquidation clarity (8)
Funding is paid every hour. The page publishes the full calculation: an average premium index sampled every 5 seconds, plus an interest-rate term clamped to ±0.05%, with an asset-specific ceiling and floor such as ±3% for BTC-PERP. The liquidation fees page lists 1% for tier-1 perpetuals, 3% for tier-2, 5% for pre-launch markets and 0.5% for options. The ETH perpetual specification sets initial margin at 5% (20x maximum leverage) and maintenance at 3%. Pre-launch futures carry a 50% initial and 48% maintenance margin. What is missing is a list of which perpetuals sit in tier 1 and which in tier 2. The page only says tiers depend on "conditions such as global market liquidity", which keeps the mark below 9.
Risk documentation (7)
The liquidations page sets out the sequence. The account is taken over and its open orders are cancelled. Positions are then reduced with limit orders every 2 seconds for up to 30 seconds. Any remainder trades with the insurance fund at a markup. ADL against the most profitable, highest-leveraged accounts is the last step, and its rank formula is published. Two gaps hold the mark at 7. The documentation gives no size, funding source or address for the insurance fund. And the ADL page says perps and options on BTC, ETH and SOL are currently not under ADL, without explaining what covers bad debt on those markets if the fund runs short. For how margin levels translate into liquidation distance, see our guide to crypto risk management.
Weakest criteria: code, then audits
Licence & code openness (2): a deficiency
Aevo's documentation describes an off-chain order book, matching engine and risk engine, so the core of the exchange is not published code. On GitHub, the aevoxyz organization holds a Python SDK with no licence file. The ribbon-finance organization publishes newer Rust and TypeScript SDKs and agent tools under MIT. The rubric reads the licence on the core protocol, not the SDK, and an open SDK wrapped around a closed engine scores low. No public repository of Aevo's exchange or rollup deposit contracts with a licence file was found.
Audit disclosure (5): a record exists, but the docs do not show it
The documentation index has no audits or security page, and none of the exchange pages we opened names an audit firm or links a report. The reports exist, however. The aevoxyz/audit and ribbon-finance/aevo-audit repositories hold PDF files uploaded between 2023 and 2024, with no README. Opened for this check, the first pages identify two firms. One is a Veridise "Auditing Report" for Aevo Exchange, dated October 18, 2023 and prepared for Ribbon Finance. Its first page is stamped "DRAFT". The other is a Spearbit "Ribbon Finance Security Review" dated October 7, 2022. Further Veridise-named files include one labeled for Aevo governance in January 2024. The firms are named and dated inside the reports, so the record is no longer absent. Three gaps hold the mark at 5. A trader has to find the repositories unaided, the file names do not say what each report covers, and the main exchange report on file is a draft.
What the score does not cover
- Liquidity and execution. Spreads, depth and slippage were not measured.
- Report findings. Only the audits' first pages were read. Whether their findings were fixed is not assessed.
- Off-chain dependence. Trading relies on Aevo's own order book, risk engine and index price, and on the rollup's sequencer. These are not scored as such.
- Access. The terms exclude residents of several countries, including Canada, the United Kingdom and Singapore. Availability is not a criterion.
- Legacy Ribbon vaults. The older Ribbon option vaults, which lost about $2.7 million in December 2025, are a separate product from the exchange rated here.
Aevo vs Hyperliquid and Gains Network
Hyperliquid scores 7.0 after its own re-scoring and sits one place above Aevo with a similar profile. Both document trading terms well and both keep the core closed: Hyperliquid marks 2 for licence and 6 for audits, against Aevo's 2 and 5. Hyperliquid pulls ahead on each trading-terms criterion: fees (9 against 8), funding and liquidation (10 against 8) and risk documentation (8 against 7). Gains Network, one place below at 5.8 after its own re-scoring, also marks 5 for audit disclosure. It edges Aevo on fees (9) and licence (3) but trails on funding and liquidation (7) and risk documentation (5).
Who this rating suits
The score reflects a venue that publishes its trading terms well, its audit record only partly and its code poorly. It suits traders who want to look up fees, funding and margin before opening a position. It suits less well anyone who wants to read the exchange's code. The score assesses documentation and is not a recommendation to trade with leverage.
How it compares
dYdX
Open AGPL core with fee and liquidation rules in numbers
Ostium
Audited, MIT-licensed contracts with no criterion below 8
GMX
Documented fees and funding, with a long named audit record
Orderly Network
Funding and margin rules in full, backed by 17 public audit reports
Paradex
Fee, funding and liquidation rules published as figures
Hyperliquid
Funding and liquidation terms documented to the exact formula
Gains Network
Per-asset fees and liquidation thresholds published in full
Jupiter Perps
Itemized trading costs and a named audit record for the program
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Aevo docs: perpetuals fees — checked
- 2.Aevo docs: liquidation fees — checked
- 3.Aevo docs: perpetual futures funding rate — checked
- 4.Aevo docs: ETH perpetual futures specifications — checked
- 5.Aevo docs: pre-launch token futures — checked
- 6.Aevo docs: margin framework — checked
- 7.Aevo docs: liquidations — checked
- 8.Aevo docs: auto-deleveraging (ADL) — checked
- 9.Aevo docs: off-chain orderbook and risk engine — checked
- 10.Aevo: terms of service — checked
- 11.Halborn: explained, the Aevo Ribbon Finance hack (December 2025) — checked
- 12.GitHub: aevoxyz organization repositories — checked
- 13.GitHub: ribbon-finance organization repositories — checked
- 14.GitHub: ribbon-finance/aevo-audit (Veridise and Spearbit reports) — checked
- 15.GitHub: aevoxyz/audit (Veridise and Spearbit reports) — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does Aevo score 6.0?
It is the average of five equal marks: 8 for fee transparency, 8 for funding and liquidation clarity, 2 for licence and code openness, 5 for audit disclosure and 7 for risk documentation. They total 30, and 30 divided by 5 is 6.0.
What holds Aevo's score back?
Mainly code openness, marked 2. Aevo's order book and risk engine run off-chain, and only its SDKs are public. Audit disclosure, at 5, also counts against it, because the reports are not mentioned anywhere in the documentation.
What changed since the previous scoring?
Audit disclosure rose from 2 to 5, lifting the overall score from 5.4 to 6.0. The PDFs in Aevo's GitHub audit repositories were opened and found to name Veridise, for Aevo Exchange in October 2023 (a draft), and Spearbit, for Ribbon Finance in October 2022. The docs still do not link them.
How does Aevo compare with Hyperliquid and Gains Network?
Hyperliquid scores 7.0. Like Aevo, it keeps its core closed (licence 2), but it marks one or two points higher on each trading-terms criterion. Gains Network scores 5.8. It matches Aevo's 5 for audits and trails it on funding, liquidation and risk documentation.
What was not measured in this rating?
Liquidity, spreads, execution quality and uptime. The rating is based on Aevo's published documentation and code. No account was opened and no trades were placed.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.