Yield health checks: what to look for before you deposit (and what tools can’t know)

December 30, 2025 · 6 min read

A practical checklist for evaluating yield and points incentives: admin risk, upgradeability, liquidity, and the limits of automated risk flags.

toolssecurityriskguide

Table of contents

Neon heartbeat line with shield icon on a dark grid background

If you’re farming points, you’ll eventually run into “yield” decisions: staking, lending, LPing, or incentives that look safe until they aren’t. A yield health check is a way to slow down and ask the questions that prevent avoidable losses.

This guide gives you a checklist you can reuse and explains what automated tools can flag, and what they can’t know. Use the tool here: yield health checker.

Start from sourced campaigns: points directory.

Quick take

Separate the yield into components: base yield, incentives, and points.
Identify the biggest risk surface: admin keys, upgrades, oracle, or liquidation.
Check exit constraints; “good yield” is irrelevant if you can’t exit.
Treat dashboards as starting points, not proof.
If a claim isn’t sourced, label it unverified.

Nothing here is financial advice. This is a safety workflow.

What a “yield health check” is

A yield health check is a structured review of:

where yield comes from
what risks you take to earn it
how you exit if conditions change

It’s the difference between “this APY looks good” and “I understand what can break.”

Break yield into components (don’t mix them)

Most “yield” pages blend three different things:

base yield (fees or interest generated by the protocol)
incentives (token emissions or rewards paid to attract liquidity)
points (an internal scoreboard that may convert to rewards later, or may not)

If you don’t separate these, you’ll overpay in risk.

Here’s a simple way to write it down:

Component	What it is	What can change quickly
Base	Fees or interest generated by real usage	Utilization, volume, market conditions
Incentives	Tokens paid to bootstrap activity	Reward rates, eligibility, cliff dates
Points	A tracking unit for a campaign	Rules, multipliers, filters, seasons

The goal is not to “optimize.” The goal is to avoid building a plan on assumptions you can’t source.

The checklist (copy this)

Use this table before you deposit anywhere as of 2025-12-30.

Question	What a good answer looks like	What counts as a red flag
Where does yield come from?	Clear breakdown (fees, borrow interest, incentives, points)	“High APY” with no explanation
Who controls upgrades?	Multisig, timelock, documented controls	One-key upgrades with no delay
Can withdrawals be paused?	Clear pause policy and safeguards	Pausable exits with no guardrails
What’s the exit path?	Simple, documented steps; predictable timing	Queues/cooldowns hidden until deposit
What’s the liquidation risk?	Clear parameters and oracle design	You can’t find liquidation details
What’s the liquidity risk?	Deep liquidity and reasonable slippage	Thin liquidity on exit
What’s the link safety?	Official domains and sourced links	You found the app via ads or DMs

If you can’t answer a row, reduce exposure. Uncertainty is not free.

What to verify in the UI before you deposit

Docs tell you the model; the UI tells you what you’ll actually sign and what the exit path looks like.

Before you deposit, confirm:

what asset you’re depositing (and what you receive in return)
whether withdrawals are instant, queued, or delayed
whether there are minimums, cooldowns, or penalties
which contracts you’re approving as spenders

If the UI disagrees with docs, treat it as a stop sign until you can explain why.

What tools can flag (and what they can’t)

Automated tooling can help you notice:

obvious red flags (missing metadata, unclear sources)
common risk patterns (upgradeability, admin controls)
basic math and sanity checks

Tools cannot guarantee:

that contracts are safe
that governance will act in your favor
that incentives won’t change tomorrow
that a points program will convert into rewards

Treat tool output as a prompt to investigate, not as permission to deposit.

Use the tool: yield health checker.

How this connects to points farming

Points incentives can mask yield fragility. People accept worse risk because “points might make up for it.”

Flip the thinking:

Assume points are worth zero until proven otherwise.
Evaluate the position on its own merits.
Then treat points as optional upside.

If you want a framework for comparing programs, read: compare crypto points programs.

A fast way to triage sources

When you’re short on time, the fastest trust signal is a clean source trail:

official docs explain the mechanism
official UI matches the docs
contract addresses are published and consistent
change logs are dated

If you want a deeper workflow, read: how to triage protocol sources.

A “points are worth zero” sanity check

This one habit keeps people out of trouble:

Evaluate the position as if points are worth zero.

If the position doesn’t make sense without points, you’re trading real risk for an unpriced asset.

That doesn’t mean “never do it.” It means size it like an experiment, not like an investment thesis.

FAQ

Does a yield health check prevent all losses?

No. It reduces avoidable losses. Smart contracts can still fail and markets can still move.

Are audits enough?

Audits help, but they are not a guarantee. Look at upgradeability, admin controls, and whether the system changed after the audit.

If incentives are high, does that mean risk is high?

Often, but not always. Incentives can be bootstrapping or marketing. Your job is to understand the mechanism and exit path.

Should I farm points if the yield is negative?

Don’t justify a loss with points you can’t value. If the position is net-negative after fees, treat it as a red flag.

What’s a “green flag” that a yield page is trustworthy?

Clear sources, clear dates (“as of”), and a transparent explanation of where yield comes from. Bonus points if the protocol publishes contract addresses and a change log.