dHEDGE Review
Open AGPL code and a full, linked audit archive
of 10
dHEDGE, now Chamber, scores 7.8 in DeFi protocols. It earns full marks for AGPL-licensed contracts and 14 linked audit reports, and computes vault value on-chain. Its weakest point is control: a multisig executes votes and contract upgrades reach every vault at once, with no stated timelock. Desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Overall score
7.8 = (8 + 10 + 10 + 7 + 4) / 5
Brand
Rebranded to Chamber; same contracts, vaults, DAO and DHT token
Fee caps
Entry 2%, exit 2%, performance 50%, management 3%/yr; 10% to protocol
Licence
AGPL-3.0 (dhedge/V2-Public)
Audits
14 linked reports, seven firms, Sep 2020 to Mar 2026
Upgrade control
Factory owner via DAO multisig; upgrades hit all vaults immediately
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 10.0 + 10.0 + 7.0 + 4.0) ÷ 5 = 7.8.
Pros
- Licence 10: V2-Public contracts repository is AGPL-3.0
- Audits 10: 14 dated, linked reports from seven firms, September 2020 to March 2026
- Fee caps enforced on-chain: entry 2%, exit 2%, performance 50%, management 3% a year
- Fee increases need a 14-day on-chain announcement; decreases apply immediately
- Backing 7: NAV computed on-chain from vault holdings and oracles
Cons
- Governance 4: a DAO multisig executes Snapshot votes; there is no on-chain governor
- Implementation upgrades apply to every vault immediately; no timelock is stated
- The terms name no legal entity, only the Chamber DAO
- Each vault sets its own fees within the caps, so there is no single rate
How dHEDGE (now Chamber) scores in DeFi protocols
This entry rates dHEDGE, the on-chain vault protocol, in our DeFi protocols ranking. The protocol now trades as Chamber. Its documentation says "Chamber is the rebrand of dHEDGE": the same contracts, vaults, DAO and DHT token, with dhedge.org now redirecting to chamberfi.com. The marks below apply to that unchanged contract system. The basis is desk research of the Chamber documentation, its terms of use and the dHEDGE GitHub organization, checked on November 1, 2026. No vault was funded. The category has five criteria, each marked 0 to 10 and weighted equally, as set out in our ratings methodology.
| Criterion | What the sources show | Mark |
|---|---|---|
| What it does & fees | Four manager-set fees with caps enforced on-chain: entry 2%, exit 2%, performance 50%, management 3% a year. 10% of each fee goes to the protocol. Increases need 14 days' notice. | 8 |
| Licence & code openness | The V2-Public contracts repository is AGPL-3.0. The SDK is MIT. | 10 |
| Audit disclosure | An audit page lists 14 dated reports from seven named firms, September 2020 to March 2026, each linked. | 10 |
| Backing & transparency | Assets sit in each vault contract. NAV is computed on-chain from holdings and Chainlink, Pyth and TWAP oracles, and every position change is visible on-chain. | 7 |
| Governance & control | Snapshot votes are executed by a DAO multisig, with no on-chain governor. Factory owners can upgrade implementations, and upgrades reach every vault immediately. No timelock or signer threshold is stated. | 4 |
The overall score is the plain average: (8 + 10 + 10 + 7 + 4) / 5 = 39 / 5 = 7.8, up from 7.4 at the July 24, 2026 check. Three marks moved on the rebuilt Chamber documentation. Audit disclosure rose from 9 to 10 and Backing & transparency from 4 to 7. Governance & control fell from 6 to 4, because the documentation now states that implementation upgrades apply to every vault immediately and that a multisig, not code, executes votes.
Strongest criteria
Open code and a full audit archive (10 and 10)
The main contracts repository, dhedge/V2-Public, is AGPL-3.0, an OSI-approved copyleft licence, and its latest push was September 14, 2026. The audit page lists 14 reports with dates, scopes and links. They come from iosiro (2020, 2021, 2023), CertiK (2021, 2022), Zach Obront (2023), Trust Security (2024), Santipu (2024, 2025), Sherlock (2024, 2025, 2026) and Obsidian (March 2026). The V2 core was reviewed by Sherlock in June 2024 and again in September 2025. A dated, linked archive across several firms is the standard this category gives full marks for. The incident-history page says no depositor has lost funds to a contract exploit since the October 2020 launch. That is the project's own statement.
Fees with caps the contract enforces (8)
Each manager sets an entry, exit, performance and management fee. All are paid by minting vault shares rather than taking cash. The caps are stated and enforced on-chain, and a fee increase is a two-step process that cannot complete until 14 days after it is proposed. Decreases apply at once. The mark is not higher because the rate a depositor pays depends on the vault: the docs give caps, not one schedule.
Backing visible on-chain (7)
In July we found no reserves statement. The NAV and accounting page now explains the method in full. The contract lists each holding, prices it through oracles, nets out debt on leveraged positions and divides by the shares outstanding, with "no off-chain accounting". Vault assets stay in the vault contract, not with the manager. The mark is below the 9 that Nexus Mutual's single on-chain capital pool earns. That is because a vault's value depends on oracle prices for many integrated positions, and the docs list oracle errors as a risk.
Weakest criterion
Governance and upgrade control: a deficiency (4)
The governance page says votes run on Snapshot, weighted by vDHT from the legacy staking contract on Optimism, and that "Execution is performed by the DAO multisig." There is no on-chain governor. The contract-addresses page adds that vault logic sits behind per-vault proxies, that upgrades are owner-only on the factory, and that "Implementation upgrades apply to every vault immediately." Neither page gives the multisig threshold or a timelock. The terms name no legal entity: the operator is the Chamber DAO, described as a network of contributors. The 14-day fee delay protects depositors from fee changes but not from contract upgrades. That gap is why the mark fell.
What the score does not cover
The score measures the protocol's published disclosure. It does not rate any manager, vault strategy or return. The guard system limits which assets and protocols a manager may use. It does not stop a manager from trading badly, and a leveraged vault can lose most of its value. Deposits are locked for up to 24 hours, and single-asset withdrawals carry swap costs. The terms bar the United States and a list of sanctioned jurisdictions, and vaults holding Ondo tokenized stocks add further limits. The brand change itself is not scored. Readers should expect the dHEDGE and Chamber names to appear side by side for a while. Our guide to yield farming explains how strategy risks stack.
dHEDGE vs Nexus Mutual and Reserve
Nexus Mutual scores 8.2 and is another entry here whose backing can be checked on-chain. It matches dHEDGE on fees (8) and open code (10), leads on backing (9 against 7) and governance (6 against 4), and trails on audits (8 against 10). Reserve, the closest product match because it packages tokens into on-chain portfolios, scores 8.0. It ties dHEDGE on fees (8), licence (10) and backing (7), trails on audits (9 against 10) and leads on governance (6 against 4), because it states a default 48-hour timelock. Both peers finish ahead of dHEDGE on governance, the criterion that holds its score back.
Who it suits
On these marks, dHEDGE suits depositors outside the barred jurisdictions who want to check a manager's limits, fee caps and holdings on-chain before depositing, and who value a long, linked audit record. It suits less well anyone who needs a timelock between a governance decision and a contract upgrade. Governance is the criterion most likely to move at the next check.
How it compares
Nexus Mutual
GPL code, an on-chain capital pool and a per-release audit log
Reserve
Open-source basket tokens with capped fees and 19 audits
Maple Finance
Dated, linked audits for every release since V2
Index Coop
Per-product fees, Apache code and six named auditors
Ondo Finance
Thirteen named auditors and daily attestations on tokenized assets
Derive (formerly Lyra)
Options and perp fees published in full, with a named V3 audit
Term Finance
Fixed-rate loans with published fees and a worked example
Synthetix
A published, volume-tiered perps fee schedule
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.Chamber docs — dHEDGE to Chamber — checked
- 2.Chamber docs — Fees & performance (caps, 14-day notice) — checked
- 3.Chamber docs — DAO protocol fees — checked
- 4.Chamber docs — Audits — checked
- 5.Chamber docs — Incident history — checked
- 6.Chamber docs — NAV & accounting — checked
- 7.Chamber docs — What is Chamber (custody) — checked
- 8.Chamber docs — Governance overview — checked
- 9.Chamber docs — Contract addresses (upgrades and proxies) — checked
- 10.Chamber — Terms of use — checked
- 11.dHEDGE — V2-Public repository (AGPL-3.0) — checked
Frequently asked questions
Why does dHEDGE score 7.8?
It is the plain average of five equal marks: fees 8, licence 10, audits 10, backing 7 and governance 4. Open code and the audit archive carry the score. Governance holds it back.
Is dHEDGE the same as Chamber?
Yes. Chamber's documentation says it is the rebrand of dHEDGE, with the same contracts, vaults, DAO and DHT token. This review keeps the dHEDGE name because it rates the same contract system.
What changed since the July 2026 score?
Audit disclosure rose from 9 to 10 and backing from 4 to 7, based on the rebuilt Chamber documentation. Governance fell from 6 to 4 after the docs stated that upgrades reach every vault immediately and that a multisig executes votes. The overall score went from 7.4 to 7.8.
What would raise the governance mark?
A published timelock on factory upgrades and a stated multisig threshold, or on-chain execution of votes, would address the gaps the mark is based on.
Does the score rate dHEDGE vault managers?
No. It rates the protocol's disclosure. Manager skill, strategy risk and returns were not measured, and the guard system does not protect against poor trading.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.