Helion Protocol research programme.
Programme overview
- Protocol category
- Liquid Staking
- Ecosystems in scope
- Ethereum
- In-scope components
- 6 (5 contracts, 1 other)
- Languages
- Solidity
Focus areas
Where research is most wanted.
- 01
Rebase precision and share math
- 02
Oracle committee quorum and report validation
- 03
Withdrawal queue fairness
- 04
Operator key management
Scope
In scope.
| Component | Type | Identifier | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| StakingPoolEthereum | Smart contracts | 0x75fb6bcbf9829a5c91653e732852fc9bdc00d476 | Deposits, minting and the withdrawal queue |
| hETHEthereum | Smart contracts | 0x15300c8e08bc8565b7cdc75775642d6b1e18acac | Rebasing liquid staking token |
| OperatorRegistryEthereum | Smart contracts | 0x7d446ecc31db46330cefa60506c98ccb0c6bf16f | Node operators, keys and deposit limits |
| AccountingOracleEthereum | Smart contracts | 0xc60a15552033309c7e38512dc97547ce7a3729a6 | Committee reports of validator balances |
| WithdrawalVaultEthereum | Smart contracts | 0x196f8b4cc35d738bd296c807988caa713404ada2 | Receives beacon-chain withdrawals |
| Oracle committee reporter | Infrastructure | reporter.helion-protocol.example | Off-chain service that signs balance reports (test deployment) |
Out of scope
- Beacon-chain consensus
- Individual node operators’ infrastructure
- Issues already reported in the research assessment
- Findings that require compromised keys or privileged access the attacker could not obtain
Severity
How findings in this programme are rated.
- Critical
- Minting hETH without deposits
- Forging an accepted oracle report
- High
- Manipulating rebases to extract value
- Bypassing withdrawal ordering
- Medium
- Precision loss that accumulates against holders
- Low
- Report metadata not validated where it has no financial effect
Rules of engagement
Research within these rules.
- 01Test only against a local fork or the programme’s test deployment. Never interact with production systems or other users’ funds.
- 02Do not run denial-of-service, spam or social-engineering tests, and do not access data that is not yours.
- 03Report privately through the submission form. Keep details confidential until a disclosure date is agreed.
- 04One finding per submission, with a reproducible proof of concept where code is involved.
- 05Issues already listed in the protocol’s research assessment as acknowledged or open are not eligible for recognition.
These rules, together with the disclosure policy, define what the programme authorises. Testing outside them is not authorised.
Recognition
Validated findings receive recognition. This programme offers no monetary reward.
Acknowledgement in the report
Validated findings are credited in the protocol’s research assessment or advisory, by name or handle, with your consent.
Recognition ledger
Each validated finding becomes a ledger entry recording programme, vulnerability class, severity and validation date. Entries are published only with the researcher’s consent.
Researcher standing
Standing reflects validated findings over time: Contributor after the first, Recognised after three, Distinguished after a validated critical or high finding with a published write-up.
Research collaboration
Researchers with standing are invited to closed challenge rounds and to co-author research on the vulnerability classes they reported.
Report a finding in this programme.
One finding per submission, with steps to reproduce. Keep details private until a disclosure date is agreed.