FAQ

Questions with edges.

Why is it called Cupel?

A cupel is the little bone-ash cup a fire assay happens in. Everything the sample claimed that was not the noble metal is absorbed into its walls, and what is left in the bottom is a bead of the real thing. It is the object that separates a claim from what is actually there — which is the whole of what this does to maxWithdraw. The quote is not read, it is executed, and the answer that counts is the one the EVM gives.

What is Robinhood Chain, and why here?

An EVM chain (id 4663) with its own public JSON-RPC endpoint at rpc.mainnet.chain.robinhood.com, carrying real ERC-4626 vaults denominated in USDG. Every number on this site was read from it at head, and every property on the contract page was executed by its own EVM through eth_call — which is why there is no testnet, no fork and no funded account anywhere in this project. The gas figure on the app page came from eth_estimateGas against that same node.

Is this a real deployment?

The contract is real, compiles with solc 0.8.26, and every property on the contract page was executed against Robinhood Chain's own EVM. It is not deployed to a canonical address and it is unaudited. The app builds and shows you the exact calldata it would send, and will talk to any Cupel deployment whose address you give it.

Why does an exit fee exist at all?

Because it is where the bug lives. Without a fee the naive quote and the exact one agree, and the whole class of failure this site is about is invisible. It is capped in code at 100 bps, it is charged identically by the quote and by the exit, and it accrues to the holders who stayed rather than to a fee recipient.

Is “overstated” just a rounding complaint?

No. The largest single case in the sweep is a vault that values a holder's shares at 71,348,022 DEEP and quotes them zero. Rounding is the other half of the finding, and it is the half a correct implementation can fix for free.

Could a vault be “overstated” for an innocent reason?

Yes, and the page says so. A vault whose assets are deployed is short of liquidity now and may be fine in an hour. The claim is not that these vaults are broken; it is that the number they publish, at the moment they publish it, is not the number the standard requires it to be — and a holder reading it has no way to tell.

Why measure at head only?

Because that is where the question lives, and because this chain answers a state read more than a few thousand blocks behind head with metadata is not found. Restricting the whole sweep to head state sidesteps that entirely: every number here is one the node will still answer for.

What is the berth?

The single address a steward may move assets to. A steward with no destination is the same as no bound at all, so the constructor requires both or neither — property 21 constructs it each way and requires both to be refused.

Who is behind this?

It is a build, not a company. There is no token, no raise, no waitlist, and nothing on this site collects anything from you. The photographs are credited on credits.