Skip to main content

​
Run a public institutional diligence review

Use this guide when you already know you need an institutional-style diligence pass and want to do it against the current public contract before escalating for anything private or deployment-specific.

​
Before you start

Have one written scope for the review:
  • venue and market-structure diligence
  • API and integration diligence
  • governance and token-control diligence
  • regulatory and operating-boundary diligence
If the scope is still vague, start with Institutional Resources first and narrow the evaluation path there.

​
Step 1: Fix the evaluation scope and evidence format

Create one review worksheet with these columns:
  • question
  • public route used
  • answer found
  • unresolved gap
  • escalation owner
Do not start by emailing for a private packet. First prove which questions the public contract already answers.

​
Step 2: Establish the platform and boundary model

Read these pages first: Record:
  • what is public versus restricted
  • whether the products being evaluated are actually part of the published baseline
  • which questions are platform-design questions versus live deployment questions

​
Step 3: Review execution, pricing, and solvency controls

Use these pages as the core risk packet: Record one answer for each of these:
  • what guards prevent invalid or dangerous execution
  • how mark-price and funding inputs affect risk state
  • where liquidation, insurance-fund, and ADL behavior are documented
  • which product constraints are code-backed baseline values rather than universal live guarantees

​
Step 4: Review technical integration posture

Use these routes: Record:
  • which public APIs are canonical today
  • the difference between generated endpoint/channel schemas and cross-surface operational references
  • rate-tier, burst, and ordered-state constraints that affect production client design

​
Step 5: Review governance, token, and proposal control surfaces

Use these routes: Record:
  • who can propose, vote, queue, and execute under the published governance model
  • where token-linked voting and delegation behavior is defined
  • which governance expectations are public requirements versus unpublished internal review process

​
Step 6: Classify every remaining gap correctly

For each unresolved item, label it as exactly one of:
  • not published publicly
  • deployment-conditional
  • restricted/operator-oriented
  • documentation ambiguity
Do not treat those categories as interchangeable. A missing public artifact is different from a value that is intentionally deployment-conditional.

​
Step 7: Escalate only the unresolved public-boundary gaps

Escalate through Support Channels only after your worksheet names:
  1. the exact public page and section consulted
  2. the unanswered diligence question
  3. whether the missing answer appears to be private, deployment-specific, or simply unclear
This keeps escalation precise and avoids asking for material the public docs already publish.
Last modified on April 12, 2026