Interesting to see how different vault infrastructure attracts different asset classes. Morpho is the largest vault infrastructure provider in aggregate, holding ~65% of all tracked vault deposits. For stablecoins specifically, 82% of USDC and 84% of USDT deposits sit in Morpho vaults. If we instead look at non-stablecoins, Veda has carved out a spot currently as the top choice for wrapped L1 assets. 42% of WETH and 73% of WBTC sit in Veda vaults. This result tracks with Veda's ability to access a wider yield opportunity set. WETH and WBTC generally don't earn high yields through lending alone, so vaults that can allocate beyond lending markets have an edge with these assets.

My point of view as someone building industry leading analytical products covering the vaults ecosystem: I find the Steakhouse perspective on vaults very compelling, and in close alignment with my personal view of the sector. - Trustless onchain NAV accounting - Automated, transparent strategies - Strict noncustodiality Reassuring for the industry that segment leaders like Steakhouse actively hold themselves and the rest of the space to a high, publicly documented standard.

there is a line in Peirce new statement on crypto vaults that i keep coming back to, where she tells curators to go figure out on their own whether their activity triggers the federal securities laws: "Parties involved in managing these vaults, for example, by selecting the yield-generating activities, re-allocating assets among yield-generating assets, or selecting the parties that will make those decisions, may want to analyze whether their activities implicate the federal securities laws." that sentence feels as an instruction and the instruction is really a data problem since to analyze whether an activity implicates the securities laws, someone needs a record of what got decided, when it changed and who had the authority to decide it and that record is the part almost nobody in the industry currently keeps. i have been building toward almost exactly that record for the past year, from a completely different angle. first paper (vault as a credit instrument) is a formal credit risk framework for lending vaults and it shows that before you can even compute depositor risk on a curated vault, two things have to be disclosed. first, the parameter history (what was allocated, reallocated and when) and, second, the governance structure (who holds decision authority and whether that authority faces a timelock or can be exercised in real time). if either one is missing, we dont treat that as a gap to dismiss past but we treat the silence itself as the worst case answer, which is a stricter standard than most disclosure regimes apply. comparing that to Peirce's sentence and the overlap is close to be exact as "selecting and re-allocating yield-generating activities" is our parameter history and "selecting the parties who decide" is our governance disclosure. we built that standard for depositors but it turns out to be the same starting record either way. second paper (out in august) moves past disclosure and starts scoring curator discretion directly including how fast governance can respond before a stress event turns into a loss, whether incentives are aligned, where the conflicts of interest sit and how exposed a vault is to a curator might quietly miscalibrating a parameter, all reduced to a number attached to the exact behavior Peirce just flagged as a possible securities trigger. neither paper answers the legal question you would need Howey or Reves to resolve, and that determination is not ours to make. however, Peirce has now made curator discretion the central fact pattern for that determination and right now most people trying to characterize their own activity against it have nothing more rigorous than a paragraph on a docs page. we spent a year building the record keeping layer and we are about to add the measurement layer on top of it, so that whatever happens on the legal side, someone can say precisely what a curator did and how much risk that decision created, with each number tied to a stated assumption. $8.6B is currently sitting across 788 curated vaults reaching 1.4 million users, these numbers make clear the industry has every incentive to build its own disclosure and measurement standard now, before a regulator writes one for it instead.

Morpho is already the top vault infrastructure provider with ~65% market share by AUM Watching closely to see how Morpho Midnight helps Morpho expand its dominance over the lending vault sector, as the most ambitious fixed-rate, fixed-term lending protocol so far

"Curators have new ways to differentiate. Blue let curators configure risk; Midnight lets them configure risk and rate, while duration becomes a new dimension of curation" Will be interesting to see how the curator landscape evolves given the new dimensions for differentiation

Aave V4 deposits have hit a new high of over $200M, and loans are nearly $60M Over two thirds of deposits are on the Ethereum Main Spoke, but Bluechip and EtherFi spokes are also significant More recently, the Forex and Gold spokes have also seen increased deposit activity