# Curator Scoring Rubric

## Detailed Scoring Criteria

### 1. Track Record (25%)

| Score | Criteria |
|-------|----------|
| 10 | >3 years active, impeccable record, industry recognition |
| 9 | 2-3 years active, consistent excellence, no incidents |
| 8 | 1-2 years active, strong performance, minor issues resolved |
| 7 | 1-2 years active, good performance, learning visible |
| 6 | 6-12 months active, promising trajectory |
| 5 | 6-12 months active, adequate performance |
| 4 | 3-6 months active, limited data, some promise |
| 3 | 3-6 months active, concerning patterns |
| 2 | <3 months active, insufficient history |
| 1 | New or problematic history |

### 2. AUM & Growth (20%)

| Score | AUM | Growth (90d) |
|-------|-----|--------------|
| 10 | >$50M | >20% |
| 9 | $20-50M | >15% |
| 8 | $10-20M | >10% |
| 7 | $5-10M | >5% |
| 6 | $2-5M | >0% |
| 5 | $1-2M | Stable |
| 4 | $500K-1M | Stable |
| 3 | $250-500K | Any |
| 2 | $100-250K | Any |
| 1 | <$100K | Any |

### 3. Performance (20%)

| Score | APR vs Protocol Avg | Consistency |
|-------|---------------------|-------------|
| 10 | >50% above | Excellent (CV <10%) |
| 9 | 30-50% above | Very good (CV <15%) |
| 8 | 15-30% above | Good (CV <20%) |
| 7 | 5-15% above | Good (CV <25%) |
| 6 | At average | Acceptable (CV <30%) |
| 5 | 0-10% below | Acceptable |
| 4 | 10-20% below | Variable |
| 3 | 20-30% below | Inconsistent |
| 2 | 30-50% below | Poor |
| 1 | >50% below | Very poor |

### 4. Risk Management (20%)

| Score | Avg Risk Score | Volatility Management |
|-------|----------------|----------------------|
| 10 | <20 | Excellent controls documented |
| 9 | 20-30 | Strong risk framework |
| 8 | 30-40 | Good risk awareness |
| 7 | 40-50 | Adequate for strategy |
| 6 | 40-50 | Basic risk management |
| 5 | 50-60 | Acceptable with monitoring |
| 4 | 50-60 | Needs improvement |
| 3 | 60-70 | Concerning |
| 2 | 70-80 | High risk, poor controls |
| 1 | >80 | Unacceptable risk |

### 5. Strategy Clarity (15%)

| Score | Documentation | Communication |
|-------|---------------|---------------|
| 10 | Comprehensive, detailed | Proactive, responsive |
| 9 | Thorough documentation | Very responsive |
| 8 | Good documentation | Responsive |
| 7 | Adequate documentation | Generally responsive |
| 6 | Basic documentation | Responsive when contacted |
| 5 | Minimal documentation | Adequate communication |
| 4 | Sparse documentation | Slow to respond |
| 3 | Poor documentation | Poor communication |
| 2 | Very limited info | Unresponsive |
| 1 | Opaque/no info | No communication |

## Comparative Analysis Template

### Side-by-Side Comparison

| Criterion | Curator A | Curator B | Curator C |
|-----------|-----------|-----------|-----------|
| Track Record | [X]/10 | [X]/10 | [X]/10 |
| AUM & Growth | [X]/10 | [X]/10 | [X]/10 |
| Performance | [X]/10 | [X]/10 | [X]/10 |
| Risk Mgmt | [X]/10 | [X]/10 | [X]/10 |
| Strategy | [X]/10 | [X]/10 | [X]/10 |
| **TOTAL** | **[X]/10** | **[X]/10** | **[X]/10** |

### Partnership Priority

1. [Curator]: [Score] - [Key differentiator]
2. [Curator]: [Score] - [Key differentiator]
3. [Curator]: [Score] - [Key differentiator]

## Red Flag Checklist

### Hard No (Any one = Decline)
- [ ] Anonymous/unverifiable team
- [ ] History of exploits or security breaches
- [ ] Regulatory action or legal issues
- [ ] Evidence of fraudulent activity
- [ ] Refusal to provide basic information

### Serious Concern (2+ = Likely Decline)
- [ ] <3 months track record
- [ ] AUM <$250K
- [ ] Risk score >70 without justification
- [ ] APR >50% without clear yield source
- [ ] No strategy documentation
- [ ] Unresponsive to inquiries

### Monitor Closely (Note but not disqualifying)
- [ ] 3-6 months track record
- [ ] Single vault concentration
- [ ] Recent significant TVL changes
- [ ] Strategy pivots
- [ ] Limited team information