Tender 2Paid

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

Check this tender Your debrief Committee Award

Awarded and paid

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

Budget cap: 15,000.00 tUSDC
Escrow remaining: 0.00 tUSDC
Bond per bid: 0.10 NEAR
Sealed bids: 3
Closed: 12 hours ago

Result

Scored once by the pinned evaluator inside the TEE, on attempt 1. Price and the ranking are code. The committee decides the award.

Totals in basis points from the accepted on-chain result for tender 2.
Rank	Supplier bid	Score / 100	Outcome
1	vendor-a.sealedchoice.testnetBid 1, slot 0	81.66	Ranked
2	vendor-b.sealedchoice.testnetBid 2, slot 1	47.55	Awarded
3	vendor-c.sealedchoice.testnetBid 3, slot 2	45.00	Flagged Why flagged? The proposal matches an instruction-injection pattern. No score change; the committee is told to read the proposal.

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
Criterion	Scored by	Weight
Price	Code, from the price	40.00%
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 code	35.00%
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 code	25.00%

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
Slot	Bidder	Submitted	Ciphertext	Bond
0	vendor-a.sealedchoice.testnet	12 hours ago	f6cd845d…e98e031012 bytes	0.10 NEAR (settled)
1	vendor-b.sealedchoice.testnet	12 hours ago	f92bf73d…b61f0e477 bytes	0.10 NEAR (settled)
2	vendor-c.sealedchoice.testnet	12 hours ago	630c0642…b53317497 bytes	0.10 NEAR (settled)

Evaluation attempts

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

Attempt	Started	Outcome
1	12 hours ago	Accepted

Progress

7 of 7 complete

Expand a step for details.

Createdcomplete
The rubric, deadline, bond and committee were fixed and cannot change.
Key setcomplete
The TEE returned the public key that bids are encrypted to.
Fundedcomplete
The escrow has been settled.
Biddingcomplete
3 sealed bids were submitted.
Closed and evaluatedcomplete
The evaluator ran once and the contract accepted its result.
Awardedcomplete
Bid 2 was awarded with 1 approval, a deviation from the ranking with a written rationale.
Paidcomplete
The winner was paid from escrow and the remainder returned to the buyer.

What is recorded

Buyer: buyer.sealedchoice.testnet
Deadline: 10 Nov 2026 09:09 UTC
Rubric hash: 5667a800…d2080c
Tender key: 03086924…ff3ce0
Bid set root: d9f1e5f5…406cb4
Evidence bundle: 5f34d436…bfe8f8
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.