FDU-INS Insurance Product Review
Use this workflow to critique the protocol as an insurance product, not only as code.
Review lens
Evaluate:
- Profitability (expected premium vs expected losses)
- Solvency and liquidity stress risk
- Adverse selection and moral hazard exposure
- Trigger design and basis risk
- Operability (claims fairness, disputes, reserve policy)
Repository context
Start from:
requirements.mdREADME.mdpolicy-engine/README.mdpolicy-engine/contracts/src/PolicyManager.solvault/contracts/src/InsuranceVault.sol
Current assumptions to challenge:
- Flat payout equals
coverageUSDC. - Tier-based premium bps model.
- Coverage caps at absolute max and percent of entry value.
- Trigger based on a single oracle condition around floor price.
Required analysis steps
- Build a simple unit-economics table for each floor tier.
- Estimate loss ratio sensitivity under mild, base, and stressed price-drop scenarios.
- Check whether premium schedule compensates for jump-risk and correlation risk.
- Check reserve adequacy and liquidity timing under clustered claims.
- Highlight where product terms can be gamed by informed buyers.
- Propose contract-level guardrails that improve risk control.
Practical critique checklist
- Does premium scale with volatility and policy duration, or stay static?
- Is there a waiting period or anti-gaming mechanism before claims can trigger?
- Are confidence and sample-size signals used to gate low-quality oracle reports?
- Are max payout and total exposure caps enforced per feed and globally?
- Is there a reserve ratio target and underfunded-vault handling path?
- Is there reinsurance-like logic or a circuit breaker for extreme events?
Output contract
Return:
Economic riskswith quantified directionality where possible.Top 5 product changesranked by impact and implementation effort.Contract implicationsmapping each recommendation to Solidity/workflow updates.Go or no-gofor demo, pilot, and production-readiness stages.