Information checked on November 2, 2026. Pool parameters, rates and contract versions can change. The numerical example below uses hypothetical assumptions.

EVAA Protocol is a decentralized lending protocol on TON. Users can deposit supported assets to earn lending interest and borrow against eligible collateral. Its published contract code and third-party security assessments provide useful evidence when evaluating the protocol. They do not guarantee repayment, immediate withdrawals or protection from liquidation.

The practical question is which risks a particular position carries. A lender with no debt, a borrower using collateral and someone simply holding the EVAA token have different exposures. Evaluating those positions separately gives a clearer answer than a single “safe or unsafe” label.

Which EVAA position are you evaluating?

Overcollateralization gives the pool a financial buffer. That buffer can shrink when collateral falls in value, borrowed assets become more expensive or interest increases the debt. It also depends on liquidators being able to execute and sell collateral under real market conditions.

What do EVAA's audits establish?

The official EVAA contract repository identifies a Quantstamp audit for v6 and a Trail of Bits assessment for v8. The relevant questions are the reviewed code, the scope of the assessment, the treatment of findings and the version actually deployed in the pool. A report for one version does not automatically cover every later upgrade or configuration.

An audit examines a defined scope. Findings can be fixed, mitigated or acknowledged, depending on the report; those statuses have different meanings. Acknowledging a finding records it, while mitigating it reduces an identified risk. Neither label means the issue was necessarily removed from the code. Historical findings should also be distinguished from a verified vulnerability in a current deployment.

EVAA's official security page says administrative functions are controlled through a multisignature contract. Multiple signatures can reduce dependence on a single signing key. Users still need to consider who controls upgrades and parameters, what changes are possible and how changes are announced. Multisignature control does not make an upgradeable system immutable.

This matters beyond theft or software bugs. A risk-parameter change can alter the borrowing capacity of an existing position. An account that looked comfortably collateralized under one configuration may have less room under another, even if its owner has not borrowed more.

How can an EVAA borrower be liquidated?

The EVAA liquidation documentation describes account health in relation to debt and adjusted collateral value. The applicable pool and asset settings determine borrowing capacity and liquidation conditions. Collateral factors and liquidation thresholds serve different purposes; the limit for opening a borrow can differ from the point at which liquidation becomes possible. Use the current account display and the selected pool's rules.

Each asset's collateral factor determines how much of its value counts toward borrowing capacity. A collateral-price decline can shrink capacity. A rise in the price of a borrowed asset can increase the debt's value. Accrued borrowing interest can also reduce the account's remaining buffer. A health indicator or numerical threshold from another platform may use a different definition.

Liquidators repay eligible debt and receive collateral under the protocol's rules, including the applicable liquidation incentive. The documentation also describes a bad-debt procedure that can remove the earlier partial-liquidation limit. A statement such as “liquidation is always capped at 50%” would therefore be misleading, and a partial-liquidation rule is not a ceiling on an account's total losses.

KTX's guide to liquidation explains the basic concept of forced position reduction. EVAA lending uses its own collateral and debt rules; formulas for margin trading or perpetual contracts should not be substituted for them.

Why can a lender face withdrawal delays without borrowing?

EVAA's protocol-risk documentation explicitly identifies high-utilization risk. When most of an asset in the pool is being borrowed, the remaining available balance may be insufficient for an immediate withdrawal. A lending-account balance and the pool's currently withdrawable liquidity measure different things.

Borrowing demand also affects rates. A high displayed yield can reflect strong demand for the asset and limited spare liquidity. It should not be read as a fixed return or a promise that the same amount can always be redeemed immediately.

A lender with no debt is not exposed to liquidation of a personal borrowing position. The lender still has exposure to contract security, the asset itself and the pool's financial condition. If collateral cannot be sold quickly enough to cover a borrower's debt, bad debt can become a problem for the pool. The exact loss treatment depends on the applicable market and its rules.

What can go wrong with assets, oracles and TON transactions?

EVAA's oracle documentation describes multiple price sources, signed price packages and checks on their freshness. Signature checks identify the source and detect altered data. Price quality also depends on market inputs, update timing and assumptions about the assets being valued.

A stablecoin can lose its peg. A bridged token or a token representing staked assets can introduce additional redemption and market-price risks. These differences matter when an asset is used as collateral or borrowed. KTX's stablecoin depegging guide explains why a reference to one dollar is not the same as an unconditional one-dollar redemption.

TON transactions require network fees and message processing. Congestion, execution failures or unavailable price data can interfere with a planned repayment or withdrawal. A safety margin is more useful when it leaves time to act before a position becomes critical. A familiar Telegram interface also does not remove the need to verify the application, requested signature and final on-chain result.

How should users assess the risk before depositing or borrowing?

Identify the pool and assets first, then check the current rates, collateral factors, available withdrawal liquidity and liquidation conditions. For borrowing, consider how both sides of the position would behave under a sharp price move and how additional interest would affect the buffer. Borrowing the maximum displayed amount leaves little room for adverse changes.

Keep wallet control separate from contract exposure. Retaining a wallet's private key lets the owner authorize transactions; assets already deposited in a lending contract are governed by that contract's rules and available liquidity. The KTX comparison of custodial and non-custodial wallets explains that distinction.

Finally, compare the economic position being opened. Token ownership, a lending deposit and a collateralized loan create different rights, costs and risks. Evaluate a deposit using the underlying asset and pool conditions, and evaluate a loan using its collateral buffer and total borrowing cost. A rise in the EVAA token's price does not establish that either position is protected.

Frequently asked questions

Does an audit guarantee that EVAA deposits are safe?

No. Audits provide evidence about a defined scope and version. They cannot guarantee future upgrades, asset prices, liquidity or repayment.

Can I lose money if I deposit but never borrow?

Yes. Avoiding a personal borrowing position removes that position's liquidation risk. Contract failures, asset-value changes, pool losses and liquidity constraints remain relevant.

Does keeping my collateral value above my debt guarantee no liquidation?

No. Liquidation depends on collateral valued under the applicable liquidation thresholds, rather than face value alone. Interest, prices and current risk parameters also matter.

Does buying EVAA tokens mean I am earning lending interest?

No. Holding the protocol token alone does not create a lending deposit. The two positions have separate mechanics and risks.

This article is educational and does not constitute investment advice. On-chain lending can involve losses, liquidation and delayed withdrawals.