Teller protocol cover,
coverage and gaps.

Who this is for: The Teller team, protecting its USERS (lenders and borrowers on the covered contracts) against a smart contract failure

The strongest structure for users in the entire team family, and the one with the sharpest edges. Two things set it apart. First, the base wording does the work no annex can: clause 10.12 makes the recovery the users property, so a team keeping the payout voids the cover, and the proof of loss shifts from per-wallet signatures to a team post-mortem, which is what actually happens after an exploit. Second, the annex is unusually rigorous: it lists every covered contract by name and pins the covered version to GitHub commit 38c87ae, and states that the cover cannot be applied in part or whole to any contract outside that list. That is verifiable scope, which is rare. The same rigour is the risk. A pinned commit ages: any contract deployed or upgraded after it, and any market or peripheral contract not on the list, is outside the cover, and a lending protocol is a moving target. Add clause 10.11, which excludes losses caused by the team using its own admin controls, including pausing, and you have a cover that is excellent against the clean case (a bug in a listed contract at the pinned version) and thin against the messy one (an incident spanning newer code, or one where the team intervenes to limit damage). At a fixed {phrase:minPricePct} per year (live) with a 5% deductible, it is also among the most expensive of the user-protecting listings we have analysed, which fits the peril but should be a conscious decision.