Aura Finance Review
MIT-licensed with a published fee ceiling
of 10
Aura publishes a 25% total fee on all BAL revenue from Balancer LPs, itemised and capped by an absolute 25% ceiling, under an MIT licence with four named auditors. Custody and strategy detail are not addressed on the pages read.
No money changes hands. This is a non-commercial project: no advertising, no sponsored placements, and no affiliate or referral links. Links to the services below earn us nothing. Every overall score is the plain average of the criteria shown on the page, so you can check the arithmetic yourself — see our rating methodology and how the site is funded.
BAL fee
25% total: 18% auraBAL stakers, 4% AURA/ETH LPs, 0.5% caller
Fee ceiling
25% absolute
Licence
MIT
Auditors
PeckShield, Code4rena, Halborn, Zellic
Custody
Not stated
Scores
Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (8.0 + 9.0 + 9.0 + 3.0 + 4.0) ÷ 5 = 6.6.
Pros
- 25% total fee on BAL revenue itemised: 18% auraBAL stakers, 4% AURA/ETH LPs, 0.5% harvest caller
- An absolute fee ceiling of 25% stated
- MIT licence on the contracts
- Four auditors named: PeckShield, Code4rena, Halborn and Zellic
Cons
- Custody is not addressed on the security page
- The docs landing page rendered empty, so the plain-language description came only from the fees page
- Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented
- Tied to the Balancer ecosystem rather than general-purpose
A capped, itemised fee
Aura charges 25% of all BAL revenue generated by Balancer LPs, and publishes both the split — 18% to auraBAL stakers, 4% to AURA/ETH LPs, 0.5% to the harvest caller — and an absolute ceiling of 25% that the fee cannot exceed. A stated maximum is a useful commitment, and the itemisation is clear.
Open and audited
The contracts carry the MIT licence, with four auditors named: PeckShield, Code4rena, Halborn and Zellic.
The gaps
Custody is not addressed on the security page, and because the documentation landing page rendered empty, the plain-language description of what Aura does had to come from the fees page alone. Strategy allocation and historical performance are not documented either. Those absences hold the custody and transparency scores down, and the review states what could not be read rather than inferring it.
How it compares
Yield Yak
MIT-licensed, no deposit or withdraw fees
Sommelier
Apache-licensed cellars, audits unverified
Harvest Finance
Named audits, ISC only in package.json
Idle Finance
Apache-licensed with net APY and named audits
Pendle
Yield tokenisation with a flat 5% fee
Origin (OUSD)
Rebasing yield stablecoin, MIT and net APY
Beefy
Eight named auditors, no licence file
Convex Finance
MIT-licensed with fees published to the basis point
Yearn Finance
AGPL-licensed with a named audit record
Sources
Scored from published primary sources rather than hands-on use. Every figure above comes from one of the pages below, on the date shown. Manufacturers change prices and specifications without notice — if something here no longer matches the source, tell us and we will correct it.
- 1.Aura — fees — checked
- 2.Aura — aura-contracts (MIT) — checked
- 3.Aura — security and audits — checked
Frequently asked questions
What does Aura charge?
A 25% total fee on BAL revenue from Balancer LPs, split 18% to auraBAL stakers, 4% to AURA/ETH LPs and 0.5% to the harvest caller, with an absolute 25% ceiling.
Is Aura open source?
Yes. The aura-contracts repository carries the MIT licence.
Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.