Tydro

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 size floor, so size alone rejects it and we do not open an individual review until it clears that floor: 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.

Review triggers: events that reopen the verdict
• TVL sustained above the retired TVL threshold for 30 days
• A reproducible source-mapping correction shows protocol-level TVL already exceeds the threshold

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-15.

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. This identifies the protocol and places it in the lending-market class needed for this review. It does not assess 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 size floor. Current Tydro documentation continues to describe the live supplier and borrower market. We do not open the individual review until Tydro clears the size floor, so reserve caps, utilization, borrower concentration, collateral parameters, oracle configuration, administrators, deployed-code correspondence, audit remediation and incident history remain unreviewed rather than presumed safe.

Exit applicability

Tydro states that a supplier can withdraw accrued principal only when the reserve has enough 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 measure of capacity, not executable exit liquidity, and support using the capacity screen before reviewing each reserve.

Why the shared dossier decides

The v1 below-materiality dossier rejects Tydro for its current capacity without judging the protocol’s quality. Open the individual review only after the same reproducible survey perimeter clears the size floor for 30 consecutive days or a documented mapping correction proves the survey incomplete. The review must then test each contemplated market’s liquidity, utilization, collateral and oracle design, governance and emergency powers, audits and incidents, and stressed supplier withdrawals. Clearing the floor would start a review, not mean approval.

Research status

This is a capacity-unproven record for Tydro, not a quality rejection or approval. Reported TVL says how big the venue is, not what the client owns, who can change the rules, or how a position exits at a proposed size. The individual review opens when the protocol clears the size floor.

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 2026-09-15
  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 research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.