Skip to content
SealedChoice
testnetChecking for a wallet
Tender 1Paid

Security review of a DAO treasury module (near-sdk, Rust)

Published by buyer.sealedchoice.testnet

Check this tenderYour debriefCommitteeAward

Awarded and paid

The winner was paid from escrow and any remainder went back to the buyer.

View the result
Budget cap
15,000.00 tUSDC
Escrow remaining
0.00 tUSDC
Bond per bid
0.10 NEAR
Sealed bids
3
Closed
1 day ago

Result

Scored once by the pinned evaluator inside the TEE, on attempt 2. Price and the ranking are code. The committee decides the award.

Totals in basis points from the accepted on-chain result for tender 1.
RankSupplier bidScore / 100Outcome
1vendor-a.sealedchoice.testnetBid 1, slot 086.66Awarded
2vendor-c.sealedchoice.testnetBid 3, slot 252.00Flagged
Why flagged?

The proposal matches an instruction-injection pattern. No score change; the committee is told to read the proposal.

3vendor-b.sealedchoice.testnetBid 2, slot 147.55Ranked

Model scores are not reproducible between runs. What is recorded is this run, signed and checkable from the stored bytes.

Scope & scoring

Published before bidding and fixed at creation. Its hash is what the evaluator echoes back, so a changed rubric could not produce an accepted result.

Manual security review of about 1,200 lines of Rust (near-sdk 5.x): a treasury module with cross-contract withdrawals, allowances and callbacks. Deliverable: written report with severity ratings and one retest of fixes.

3 criteria, weights summing to 100.00 percent
CriterionScored byWeight
PriceCode, from the price40.00%
How credible and specific is the proposed review methodology for this scope?
How scores from 0 to 5 are defined
  • 0No methodology given.
  • 1Generic statements only, nothing tied to this scope.
  • 2Some specific steps but major gaps, such as no testing or no threat model.
  • 3Clear plan covering manual review and testing, few specifics on NEAR async risks.
  • 4Specific plan covering manual review, tests or fuzzing, NEAR cross-contract and callback risks, and reporting.
  • 5As 4, plus concrete deliverables, a timeline per phase, and a retest of fixes.
Models, checked by code35.00%
How relevant and checkable is the vendor's prior experience for this scope?
How scores from 0 to 5 are defined
  • 0No experience given.
  • 1Unverifiable claims only.
  • 2General smart-contract experience, nothing NEAR-specific or checkable.
  • 3Some NEAR or Rust contract experience, partly checkable.
  • 4Several relevant NEAR reviews with checkable public reports.
  • 5As 4, plus directly comparable work such as DAO treasury or callback-heavy contracts.
Models, checked by code25.00%

Qualitative criteria are scored by 2 models and aggregated by the lower median, needing at least 2 valid outputs. Price and the ranking are integer arithmetic, never a model.

Bids

The bid set was frozen at close with a Merkle root, so nothing could be added or dropped afterwards.

3 slots used, 3 still active
SlotBidderSubmittedCiphertextBond
0vendor-a.sealedchoice.testnet1 day agof859506b…8aa1181012 bytes0.10 NEAR (settled)
1vendor-b.sealedchoice.testnet1 day ago6d74b760…f3d5e2477 bytes0.10 NEAR (settled)
2vendor-c.sealedchoice.testnet1 day ago8fd8cf74…66dccc497 bytes0.10 NEAR (settled)

Evaluation attempts

At most three are allowed and every one is recorded, successful or not. Only one result is ever accepted.

AttemptStartedOutcome
11 day agoFailedRefused: E_EVAL_RUN_FAILED
213 hours agoAccepted

Progress

7 of 7 complete

Expand a step for details.

  1. Createdcomplete

    The rubric, deadline, bond and committee were fixed and cannot change.

  2. Key setcomplete

    The TEE returned the public key that bids are encrypted to.

  3. Fundedcomplete

    The escrow has been settled.

  4. Biddingcomplete

    3 sealed bids were submitted.

  5. Closed and evaluatedcomplete

    The contract accepted attempt 2 of at most 3.

  6. Awardedcomplete

    Bid 1 was awarded with 1 approval.

  7. Paidcomplete

    The winner was paid from escrow and the remainder returned to the buyer.

What is recorded

Buyer
buyer.sealedchoice.testnet
Deadline
09 Nov 2026 20:24 UTC
Rubric hash
5667a800…d2080c
Tender key
020d41fa…ee755f
Bid set root
2bc59965…0fbf79
Evidence bundle
b51e5e92…d518a7
Evaluator build
737b91e7…18d470
Committee
buyer.sealedchoice.testnet (1 approval needed)

Everything here was fixed when the tender was created and cannot be changed by anyone, including the buyer.

Security review of a DAO treasury module (near-sdk, Rust) | SealedChoice