Skip to content

Radiant Capital Review

72-hour timelock, no licence at all

of 10

Radiant publishes the most specific liquidation terms in this comparison — a flat 15% penalty split evenly between liquidator and growth fund, with a 50% close factor — and places all contracts behind a 72-hour timelock. Its repository contains no licence file whatsoever.

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.

Liquidation penalty

15% total: 7.5% liquidator, 7.5% Radiant Growth Fund

Close factor

Up to 50% of a single borrowed amount

Timelock

72 hours on all contracts, addresses published

Licence

None — no LICENSE file in the repository

Upgradeability

Core contracts upgradable by the owner, behind the timelock

Scores

Fee disclosure
4.0
Licence & code openness
1.0
Liquidation terms
9.0
Governance & timelock
9.0
Audit disclosure
7.0

Each criterion carries equal weight. The overall score is the average of these 5 scores — (4.0 + 1.0 + 9.0 + 9.0 + 7.0) ÷ 5 = 6.0.

Pros

  • Liquidation penalty published as a flat 15%, split 7.5% to the liquidator and 7.5% to the Radiant Growth Fund
  • Close factor stated: a liquidator may repay up to 50% of a single borrowed amount
  • All contracts behind a timelock with a stated 72-hour delay, and the timelock addresses published
  • Four auditing firms named: OpenZeppelin, BlockSec, Zokyo and PeckShield

Cons

  • The official repository has no LICENSE file on either main or master — published code with no grant of rights
  • Documentation states core contracts are upgradable by the owner
  • Reserve factor and protocol fee percentages are not published
  • Per-asset loan-to-value values are not documented

The clearest liquidation maths here

Radiant states a total penalty of 15%, splits it precisely — half to the liquidator as a bonus, half to the Radiant Growth Fund — and caps a single liquidation at 50% of the borrowed amount. No other protocol in this comparison publishes both the penalty and its destination that plainly.

Upgradeable, and honest about it

The documentation states that because Radiant was built on a framework similar to Aave and Geist, many core contracts are upgradable by the owner, and that to mitigate this all contracts sit behind a timelock with a 72-hour delay. It then publishes the timelock addresses so the claim can be checked on chain.

No licence at all

The official repository carries no LICENSE file on either branch we checked. Code published without a licence reserves all rights by default — a weaker position for a user than BUSL, which at least sets out terms and a date on which they change. This is the lowest licence score in the comparison.

How it compares

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. 1.Radiant — liquidations — checked
  2. 2.Radiant — security and timelock — checked
  3. 3.Radiant — official repository (no LICENSE file) — checked
  4. 4.Radiant — audits — checked

Frequently asked questions

What is Radiant's liquidation penalty?

A total of 15%, split evenly: 7.5% to the liquidator as a bonus and 7.5% to the Radiant Growth Fund. A liquidator may repay up to 50% of a single borrowed amount.

Is Radiant open source?

No licence file exists in the official repository. Published code without a licence reserves all rights by default.

Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.