Audit log

Every state-changing event for BlazeStake: moderation decisions on community submissions, plus corrections and updates from the news pipeline. URL-based decisions carry three independent witnesses — the original source, an Internet Archive snapshot taken at submission time, and a Solana memo signed by our publicly-disclosed publisher key.

1. #1publishby system:backfill

   2026-05-31 20:28:02Z
   Score: ? → ? (no score change)
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 423,446,837

   sig

   wmxCUh5M2swd…mSWMN7Azcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   HbmVMqhrKQYW…fmGpGKwzcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (17633 B) ▸

   {"actor":"system:backfill","investigation_id":"3b11ad47-fb22-4e94-8358-15986f869130","kind":"publish","page_slug":"blazestake","published_at":"2026-05-31T20:28:02.221Z","sequence_num":1,"snapshot":{"content_type":"investigation","entity_name":"BlazeStake","sections":[{"content":"BlazeStake is a Solana-native, non-custodial liquid staking protocol created by the pseudonymous SolBlaze team. Users deposit SOL and receive bSOL, a liquid staking token (LST) whose value accretes relative to SOL each epoch as staking rewards compound. The pool was launched in May 2022 and, according to multiple industry sources, briefly ranked as the third-largest liquid staking protocol on Solana by total value locked, behind only Jito and Marinade. As of early 2026, the protocol had approximately 1 million SOL staked and a market capitalization for bSOL of roughly $91 million. The protocol distinguishes itself by using the official Solana Labs spl-stake-pool program rather than a proprietary smart contract, and by pioneering Custom Liquid Staking (CLS) on November 24, 2022 — a feature that enables depositors to direct their stake toward specific validators while still receiving standard bSOL tokens. A BLZE governance token allows holders to participate in gauge-based voting that influences 10% of pool delegation and 10% of BLZE emissions, with plans to increase that share over time.","heading":"Protocol Overview and Mechanism","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"What Is Blaze Stake? Solana Liquid Staking Explained — Nansen","type":"research","url":"https://www.nansen.ai/post/what-is-blaze-stake"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake TVL, Fees & Revenue — DeFiLlama","type":"on_chain","url":"https://defillama.com/protocol/blazestake"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Welcome to BlazeStake — Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Which Solana LST Has the Highest APY in 2026? — StakePoint","type":"news_article","url":"https://stakepoint.app/blog/jitosol-vs-msol-vs-bsol-best-solana-liquid-staking-2026"}]},{"content":"BlazeStake relies on the Solana Labs spl-stake-pool on-chain program, which has undergone seven separate security audits conducted by five firms: Neodyme (audits in October 2021, December 2022, January 2023, and November 2023), Halborn (January 2023), OtterSec (January 2023), Quantstamp (October 2021), and Kudelski (July 2021). All audit reports are publicly referenced in the BlazeStake documentation and housed in the anza-xyz/security-audits GitHub repository. The smart contract upgrade authority is held by a multisig controlled by a broad ecosystem group that includes the Solana Foundation, intended to prevent unilateral malicious upgrades. The protocol's front-end and custom logic code are open-sourced under the SolBlazeOrg GitHub organization. No hack, exploit, or material loss of user funds has been publicly reported as of the date of this investigation. The protocol's non-custodial architecture ensures that pool operators cannot unilaterally withdraw user SOL.","heading":"Security and Audit History","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":1,"name":"Audits — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/audits"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Security Overview — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/security-overview"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Published security audits — anza-xyz GitHub","type":"other","url":"https://github.com/anza-xyz/security-audits"},{"credibility":1,"name":"SolBlaze GitHub Organization","type":"official","url":"https://github.com/SolBlazeOrg"}]},{"content":"BlazeStake's delegation strategy explicitly excludes the approximately 32 validators in Solana's 'security group' — validators that collectively control over 33% of total staked SOL — in order to avoid reinforcing existing stake concentration. As of Epoch 980, the pool was distributed across 143 active validators with an average commission of 2.96% and 68 unique data centers represented. Solana Compass data notes that 17 validators operate in overpopulated data centers, representing a minor geographic concentration risk. The BLZE gauge system allows token holders to influence an additional 10% of pool delegation. The Custom Liquid Staking feature allows depositors to direct stake to a specific validator of their choice while still receiving fungible bSOL, a feature described as unique to BlazeStake among Solana stake pools. The protocol's delegation strategy documentation states that validators in the security group are not eligible for protocol stake, directly supporting Solana network decentralization objectives.","heading":"Decentralization and Validator Distribution","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":1,"name":"Delegation Strategy — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/delegation-strategy"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake Staked SOL Stake Pool Statistics — Solana Compass","type":"on_chain","url":"https://solanacompass.com/stake-pools/stk9ApL5HeVAwPLr3TLhDXdZS8ptVu7zp6ov8HFDuMi"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Custom Liquid Staking — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/features/custom-liquid-staking"}]},{"content":"The SolBlaze team operates pseudonymously. No named founders or executives have been publicly disclosed through official channels, press releases, or verifiable third-party reporting. The GitHub organization page lists one visible member, the handle @SolBlazeDev, and states the organization is based in 'Silicon Valley,' though this claim is unverified. The project's GitHub organization (SolBlazeOrg) is verified against the domain solblaze.org. Anonymous or pseudonymous team composition is a standard risk signal in DeFi, as it reduces accountability in the event of a protocol failure, governance dispute, or legal action. This risk is partially mitigated by the use of the Solana Foundation-overseen multisig for contract upgrades, the open-source codebase, and the third-party audit trail.","heading":"Team Transparency and Identity","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":1,"name":"SolBlaze GitHub Organization — SolBlazeOrg","type":"official","url":"https://github.com/SolBlazeOrg"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solblaze on Solana — Solana Compass","type":"research","url":"https://solanacompass.com/projects/solblaze"}]},{"content":"In April 2024, SolBlaze publicly accused the Solana lending protocol MarginFi of acting in 'bad faith' regarding BLZE token emissions. SolBlaze alleged that MarginFi had failed to distribute BLZE emissions to its users over an approximately eight-day period and had allegedly dumped SolBlaze airdrop tokens that were intended for governance participation rather than immediate sale. SolBlaze responded by suspending BLZE emissions to MarginFi. The dispute occurred simultaneously with broader turmoil at MarginFi: the platform's founder and CEO, Edgar Pavlovsky, resigned on April 11, 2024, amid a separate points-incentive controversy, and the platform experienced approximately $155 million in outflows within a single day according to DeFiLlama data. MarginFi attributed the emission distribution failure to blockchain congestion rather than intentional withholding. The dispute reflects governance friction between BlazeStake's emissions-based incentive system and its DeFi integration partners but did not involve any loss of user funds held in BlazeStake itself.","heading":"MarginFi Partnership Dispute (April 2024)","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"Marginfi CEO Resigns Amid Points Controversy and SolBlaze Dispute — The Defiant","type":"news_article","url":"https://thedefiant.io/news/defi/marginfi-ceo-resigns-amid-points-controversy-and-solblaze-dispute"},{"credibility":1,"name":"MarginFi Leader Resigns on Fiery Day for Major Solana Lender — CoinDesk","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/04/11/marginfi-leader-resigns-on-fiery-day-for-major-solana-lender"},{"credibility":2,"name":"MarginFi sees $155 million outflow amid leadership shakeup — The Block","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.theblock.co/amp/post/287748/marginfi-outflow"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solana drama continues as leading DeFi founder quits amid $150 million outflows — CryptoSlate","type":"news_article","url":"https://cryptoslate.com/solana-problems-continue-as-leading-defi-founder-quits-amid-wider-ecosystem-drama/"}]},{"content":"As with all liquid staking protocols, BlazeStake carries several categories of systemic risk that users should consider. Smart contract risk: although the protocol uses the heavily-audited official Solana Labs stake-pool program, no audited system is fully immune to undiscovered vulnerabilities. Depeg risk: bSOL could trade below its redemption value in secondary markets during periods of high sell pressure or illiquidity, particularly in leveraged yield strategies. Governance risk: the BLZE gauge system and emissions program are controlled by a relatively small token holder base, and the team has not publicly disclosed plans for full governance decentralization on a fixed timeline. Solana network risk: as a protocol built exclusively on Solana, BlazeStake inherits risks from Solana's validator client, consensus mechanism, and any network outages. Instant unstaking fees and delayed redemption windows of up to two epochs (approximately four days) also represent minor liquidity constraints. None of these risks are unique to BlazeStake among Solana LSTs; they are sector-wide characteristics.","heading":"Inherent Liquid Staking Risks","severity":"medium","sources":[{"credibility":2,"name":"What Is Blaze Stake? Solana Liquid Staking Explained — Nansen","type":"research","url":"https://www.nansen.ai/post/what-is-blaze-stake"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake Staked SOL Stake Pool Statistics — Solana Compass","type":"on_chain","url":"https://solanacompass.com/stake-pools/stk9ApL5HeVAwPLr3TLhDXdZS8ptVu7zp6ov8HFDuMi"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solana Liquid Staking: The Ultimate Guide (2026) — Phantom","type":"research","url":"https://phantom.com/learn/crypto-101/solana-liquid-staking"}]},{"content":"No regulatory actions by the SEC, CFTC, DOJ, or any foreign regulator against BlazeStake or SolBlaze have been identified as of the date of this investigation. The protocol does not operate as a registered financial service in any jurisdiction, which is typical of non-custodial DeFi protocols. The broader regulatory environment for Solana liquid staking tokens and governance tokens such as BLZE remains unsettled in most jurisdictions. The protocol's terms of service restrict access from certain jurisdictions, consistent with legal risk management practices in the sector.","heading":"Regulatory Status","severity":"low","sources":[{"credibility":1,"name":"Terms and Conditions — BlazeStake","type":"official","url":"https://stake.solblaze.org/tos"}]}],"sources_used":[{"credibility":1,"name":"Welcome to BlazeStake — Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Audits — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/audits"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Security Overview — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/security-overview"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Delegation Strategy — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/delegation-strategy"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Custom Liquid Staking — BlazeStake Official Docs","type":"official","url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/features/custom-liquid-staking"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Terms and Conditions — BlazeStake","type":"official","url":"https://stake.solblaze.org/tos"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake TVL, Fees & Revenue — DeFiLlama","type":"on_chain","url":"https://defillama.com/protocol/blazestake"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake Staked SOL Stake Pool Statistics — Solana Compass","type":"on_chain","url":"https://solanacompass.com/stake-pools/stk9ApL5HeVAwPLr3TLhDXdZS8ptVu7zp6ov8HFDuMi"},{"credibility":2,"name":"What Is Blaze Stake? Solana Liquid Staking Explained — Nansen","type":"research","url":"https://www.nansen.ai/post/what-is-blaze-stake"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solblaze on Solana — Solana Compass","type":"research","url":"https://solanacompass.com/projects/solblaze"},{"credibility":1,"name":"MarginFi Leader Resigns on Fiery Day for Major Solana Lender — CoinDesk","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/04/11/marginfi-leader-resigns-on-fiery-day-for-major-solana-lender"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Marginfi CEO Resigns Amid Points Controversy and SolBlaze Dispute — The Defiant","type":"news_article","url":"https://thedefiant.io/news/defi/marginfi-ceo-resigns-amid-points-controversy-and-solblaze-dispute"},{"credibility":2,"name":"MarginFi sees $155 million outflow amid leadership shakeup — The Block","type":"news_article","url":"https://www.theblock.co/amp/post/287748/marginfi-outflow"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solana drama continues as leading DeFi founder quits amid $150 million outflows — CryptoSlate","type":"news_article","url":"https://cryptoslate.com/solana-problems-continue-as-leading-defi-founder-quits-amid-wider-ecosystem-drama/"},{"credibility":1,"name":"Published security audits — anza-xyz GitHub","type":"other","url":"https://github.com/anza-xyz/security-audits"},{"credibility":1,"name":"SolBlaze GitHub Organization","type":"official","url":"https://github.com/SolBlazeOrg"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Which Solana LST Has the Highest APY in 2026? — StakePoint","type":"news_article","url":"https://stakepoint.app/blog/jitosol-vs-msol-vs-bsol-best-solana-liquid-staking-2026"},{"credibility":2,"name":"Solana Liquid Staking: The Ultimate Guide (2026) — Phantom","type":"research","url":"https://phantom.com/learn/crypto-101/solana-liquid-staking"},{"credibility":2,"name":"BlazeStake Staked SOL Price — Messari","type":"research","url":"https://messari.io/project/blazestake-staked-sol"}],"summary":"BlazeStake is a non-custodial Solana liquid staking protocol operated by SolBlaze, launched in May 2022, that issues bSOL tokens to depositors in exchange for staked SOL distributed across 200+ validators. The protocol uses the official Solana Labs stake-pool smart contract, which has received seven external security audits from five firms; upgrade authority is controlled by an ecosystem multisig overseen by the Solana Foundation. The team operates pseudonymously and the protocol has no disclosed regulatory actions or hacks, though it was involved in a publicized partnership dispute with MarginFi in April 2024.","timeline":[{"date":"2021-10-01","event":"Kudelski and Quantstamp complete first security audits of the Solana Labs stake-pool program used by BlazeStake.","source":"BlazeStake Audits Documentation","source_url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/audits"},{"date":"2021-12-01","event":"SolBlaze project founded; roadmap planning initiated per Solana Compass founding date record.","source":"Solblaze on Solana — Solana Compass","source_url":"https://solanacompass.com/projects/solblaze"},{"date":"2022-05-01","event":"BlazeStake stake pool launched on Solana mainnet.","source":"Comparison of Solana ecosystem liquid staking projects — Gate.com","source_url":"https://www.gate.com/post/status/12000166"},{"date":"2022-11-24","event":"Custom Liquid Staking (CLS) feature introduced, enabling depositors to direct their stake to specific validators while receiving standard bSOL tokens. Described as the first such feature on Solana.","source":"Custom Liquid Staking — BlazeStake Docs","source_url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/features/custom-liquid-staking"},{"date":"2023-01-01","event":"Three additional audits completed by Neodyme, Halborn, and OtterSec on the spl-stake-pool program, bringing the total audit count to five.","source":"BlazeStake Audits Documentation","source_url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/audits"},{"date":"2023-11-01","event":"Neodyme completes a fourth audit of the stake-pool program, bringing the total to seven audits across five firms.","source":"BlazeStake Audits Documentation","source_url":"https://stake-docs.solblaze.org/protocol/audits"},{"date":"2023-12-01","event":"BlazeStake TVL exceeds $278 million, making it one of the top five protocols on Solana by TVL at the time.","source":"BlazeStake: Powering Liquidity Staking on Solana — Medium","source_url":"https://medium.com/@btejwani90/blazestake-powering-liquidity-staking-on-solana-by-solblaze-e131234f3fea"},{"date":"2024-04-11","event":"SolBlaze publicly suspends BLZE emissions to MarginFi, alleging bad faith over unpaid emissions distribution and governance token dumping. MarginFi CEO Edgar Pavlovsky resigns the same day amid broader controversy; platform sees ~$155 million in withdrawals.","source":"MarginFi Leader Resigns on Fiery Day for Major Solana Lender — CoinDesk","source_url":"https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2024/04/11/marginfi-leader-resigns-on-fiery-day-for-major-solana-lender"},{"date":"2026-02-08","event":"bSOL market capitalization reported at approximately $91 million; approximately 1 million SOL staked in the pool across 143 active validators.","source":"Which Solana LST Has the Highest APY in 2026? — StakePoint","source_url":"https://stakepoint.app/blog/jitosol-vs-msol-vs-bsol-best-solana-liquid-staking-2026"}]},"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 973d815c-c088-45e2-be7f-731ff06b7b1bcopy
2. #2reviewby reviewerreviewer

   2026-06-01 00:21:11Z
   Score: 72 → 72 (no score change)
   The BlazeStake investigation is largely accurate and well-sourced. The most significant factual error is a recurring undercount of the spl-stake-pool audit total: the page states 'seven audits from five firms' throughout, but the official BlazeStake audits page and the anza-xyz security audits repository list eight audits. A secondary but notable issue is that the $155 million MarginFi single-day outflow claim overstates what is confirmed as a single-day figure (CoinDesk cites $80-100M on the resignation day; $155M is the multi-day net outflow). The Pavlovsky resignation date is one day off (April 10 vs April 11). The $278M TVL December 2023 claim cites a source that contains no TVL data. All other core claims — launch date, protocol mechanism, Custom Liquid Staking debut, validator distribution statistics, team pseudonymity, multisig governance, and the MarginFi dispute narrative — are confirmed by independent credible sources.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 423,482,133

   sig

   vWL9xDPL1ia6…KgJzWwuucopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   7kMKkQntGMTY…5kAVSDZNcopysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1288 B) ▸

   {"actor":"reviewer","decided_at":"2026-06-01T00:21:11.212Z","decision":"review","investigation_id":"3b11ad47-fb22-4e94-8358-15986f869130","new_score":72,"page_slug":"blazestake","prev_score":72,"reason":"The BlazeStake investigation is largely accurate and well-sourced. The most significant factual error is a recurring undercount of the spl-stake-pool audit total: the page states 'seven audits from five firms' throughout, but the official BlazeStake audits page and the anza-xyz security audits repository list eight audits. A secondary but notable issue is that the $155 million MarginFi single-day outflow claim overstates what is confirmed as a single-day figure (CoinDesk cites $80-100M on the resignation day; $155M is the multi-day net outflow). The Pavlovsky resignation date is one day off (April 10 vs April 11). The $278M TVL December 2023 claim cites a source that contains no TVL data. All other core claims — launch date, protocol mechanism, Custom Liquid Staking debut, validator distribution statistics, team pseudonymity, multisig governance, and the MarginFi dispute narrative — are confirmed by independent credible sources.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":2,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 91aaeae7-ced3-4376-8867-a32d9ba6f723copy
3. #3review approveby judgejudge

   2026-06-01 00:21:11Z
   Score: 72 → 72 (no score change)
   The reviewer assessed 25 claims and found 16 confirmed, 5 partially supported, 1 disputed, and 1 unverifiable, yielding a disputed_pct of 8% — within the approval band. The sole disputed finding (claim_findings[21]) concerns a running audit count error in the timeline, which is a peripheral detail, not a core protocol claim. The recurring 'seven audits' figure (claim_findings[2] and claim_findings[9]) understates the actual eight audits found on the official audits page, which is directionally safe — it does not inflate security coverage. The unverifiable TVL figure (claim_findings[23]) cites a source that does not contain the data, but the number is directionally consistent with independently known peak TVL. The partially-supported MarginFi findings (claim_findings[18], [19], [24]) concern a one-day date discrepancy and imprecise framing of a multi-day outflow figure for a third party, neither of which affects the core BlazeStake risk assessment. No link rot, no stale critical citations, and no high-priority coverage gaps were identified. Reviewer confidence is 0.82.
   anchoranchored

   chain

   ●mainnet-betaslot 423,482,140

   sig

   4FvAzfeQijw7…6D8HMBRqcopyexplorer ↗

   hash

   6FY4tbudt5AP…SB1D2WC3copysha256 → base58

   verifying row…full verify ↗

   canonical bytes (1435 B) ▸

   {"actor":"judge","decided_at":"2026-06-01T00:21:11.212Z","decision":"review_approve","investigation_id":"3b11ad47-fb22-4e94-8358-15986f869130","new_score":72,"page_slug":"blazestake","prev_score":72,"reason":"The reviewer assessed 25 claims and found 16 confirmed, 5 partially supported, 1 disputed, and 1 unverifiable, yielding a disputed_pct of 8% — within the approval band. The sole disputed finding (claim_findings[21]) concerns a running audit count error in the timeline, which is a peripheral detail, not a core protocol claim. The recurring 'seven audits' figure (claim_findings[2] and claim_findings[9]) understates the actual eight audits found on the official audits page, which is directionally safe — it does not inflate security coverage. The unverifiable TVL figure (claim_findings[23]) cites a source that does not contain the data, but the number is directionally consistent with independently known peak TVL. The partially-supported MarginFi findings (claim_findings[18], [19], [24]) concern a one-day date discrepancy and imprecise framing of a multi-day outflow figure for a third party, neither of which affects the core BlazeStake risk assessment. No link rot, no stale critical citations, and no high-priority coverage gaps were identified. Reviewer confidence is 0.82.","score_delta":0,"sequence_num":3,"submission_content_hash":null,"submission_id":null,"submission_kind":null,"submission_valence":null,"v":1}

   Verify offline (run on your own machine)

   python -m src.verify_decision 7bc1e969-9ca8-452f-947b-b19b6f0b83d4copy