A network-extension that enables apps to define security rules and prevents hacks from violating them.
How leading protocols are securing capital
Assertions are executed in parallel during sequencing. We tested a 30 megagas/s and we ran 1 gigagas/s of assertions with no latency.
The sequencer only removes transactions that the dApps signal should be removed, keeping the network neutral.
Reduce the probability of a hack and provide easily auditable security rules, enabling more risk-averse institutions to LP and capture yield.
No. We have performed worst-case stress tests, using the most inefficient operations available (hashing), to execute assertions worth 1bn gas per block without slowing down the block time. This is because the Credible Layer heavily parallelizes execution and can fully utilize CPU cores compared to standard serial execution of transactions.
The Credible Layer simply lets dApps define assertions that can prevent certain states regardless of the contract code. These assertions should be thought of as an addition to the dApps’ core contracts. It would be censorship if a 3rd party (anyone other than the dApp) could write assertions for a dApp’s contracts. This is not how the Credible Layer works, and hence this is not censorship. Read more about this in "Can anyone write assertions for my contracts?" below.
Anyone can write the assertions, but only the owner of the contract that the assertions protect can “activate” them. This way, we ensure that no malicious third party reduces functionality by writing assertions for your contract.
No. For single-sequencer L2s, users/dApps already trust the sequencer with transaction inclusion, because, in theory, a sequencer can censor transactions arbitrarily when it receives them at the RPC layer. The Credible Layer simply extends the sequencer’s validation logic with dApp-defined rules, expressed as Assertions (EVM bytecode).
No. We are a permissionless protocol that enables hack definition and prevention. No APIs for dApps. No added points of failure. No additional trust assumptions.
¹Phylax states that:
We have not received any National Security Letters or FISA court orders. We have not been subject to any gag order by a FISA court. We have not received any warrants from any government organization. We have not placed any backdoors in our software. We have not received or complied with any government requests regarding our project. We have not altered our code or services at the request of any government agency.
If this statement is removed from future versions of this document, it is likely that Phylax has been served with a government subpoena and is unable to communicate this fact.
This statement will be updated on the 1st of every month.
Last updated: September 1st 2025
