COVERRACCOON
← Back to Nexus Mutual
Nexus Mutual · Raccoon Score

Raccoon
Score

A structured assessment across seven categories, 0 to 100 points in total. The score is an opinion based on the sources below, not a probability of payout and not a guarantee.

70/100 Solid

Assessment as of 2026-07-14 · Methodology: Raccoon Score

Score breakdown Our assessment

Coverage clarity 16/20

Precise wording with defined thresholds and explicit exclusions. Deduction: several exclusions (depeg, rug pull, bridges, frontend) narrow what buyers may expect from the name "Protocol Cover".

Capital & liquidity 15/20

Pool and MCR ratio verifiable on-chain in real time. Deduction: asset composition and per-protocol exposure not verified in this analysis; pool is largely ETH-denominated against partly USD-denominated liabilities.

Claims process 10/15

Documented process, public rationale, $18.5M paid across documented events. Deduction: decisions rest with a 3-person committee including the founder and CTO; appeal means re-filing to the same body.

Technical security 11/15

Long audit trail (iosiro, most recently March 2025, plus earlier firms), Immunefi bug bounty. Deduction: bounty capped at $50k, small relative to pool size; upgradeability and admin scope not audited here.

Governance 6/10

Member governance with public forum and on-chain votes. Deduction: Advisory Board can reverse assessment votes and replace assessors; voting power delegation concentrates influence with pool managers.

Legal enforceability 3/10

Discretionary cover: no legal obligation to pay, payout depends on the assessment vote. Membership agreement exists, but there is no enforceable insurance claim.

Transparency & data quality 9/10

Contracts verified on Etherscan, public claims database, Dune dashboards, full cover wording on IPFS, per-claim rationale published.

Total 70/100 · Solid

Red flags Our assessment

01

Payout is discretionary. There is no legally enforceable claim: an automatic warning under the Raccoon methodology, regardless of the track record.

02

Claims are decided by a 3-person committee that includes the founder and the CTO. The mutual pays, insiders decide: a structural conflict of interest.

03

The Advisory Board can reverse votes it deems fraudulent and replace assessors: a fraud safeguard, but also concentrated power.

04

The capital pool is largely ETH-denominated while cover obligations are partly USD-denominated. A sharp ETH drawdown compresses real capacity. Exact composition: not verified here.

05

Key exclusions (depeg, rug pull, bridges, frontend attacks) contradict what many buyers colloquially understand as a "protocol hack".

06

NXM is not tradable outside the mutual. Exiting requires the in-app redemption mechanism, which depends on pool liquidity.

Open questions Our assessment

Points this analysis could not verify. Anyone buying significant cover should clarify these first.

  • Exact asset composition of the capital pool (stablecoin share, staked positions, illiquid holdings)?
  • Active cover per protocol and per chain: how concentrated is the current book?
  • Historical rejection rate and average processing time across all claims, not only paid ones?
  • Legal status and jurisdiction of the Terrapin International Foundation named in the cover terms?
  • Which contracts are upgradeable, by whom, and with which timelocks?

Sources

Analysis as of 2026-07-14. Not affiliated with Nexus Mutual. Informational only, no legal, investment or insurance advice.

COVERRACCOON

Independent analysis of DeFi cover. We read the terms nobody else opens.