We keep building at @arkisxyz to make sure both what we release and how we release it can be verified. We started with attestation, built with @spearbit. Now we've established a governance board with @sparkfinance , responsible for enforcing that record before any release ships. Here are the layers we built into that enforcement process: Kyverno rejects unattested images before they can run, an MPC wallet separates the team that builds a release from the team that can approve it and the governance board executes verification on their own infrastructure, recomputing the release identifier and checking every implementation hash against the attestation before signing. None of these layers share a failure mode: compromise one, including us, and the next still catches it, so a single break-in is never enough. This is the security institutions lending into Arkis get - protection for their capital that no single point of failure can break.

Wrote up how this works under the hood - why we built on #SLSA#, how the attestation chain works, and why @spearbit's sign-off is required before anything ships.

I spend a lot of time thinking about risk: how it is defined before capital moves, and how it is enforced once capital is already in the system. My second post on Arkis’ risk framework covers what happens after capital is deployed

Most institutional strategies don't operate in a single venue. Collateral sits with custodians. Execution spans exchanges. Exposure can extend across both DeFi and CeFi simultaneously. Spark Prime extends overcollateralized lending across those environments under a unified risk framework. A deep dive from @hexonaut on the future of prime financing and how M1 Capital is using the infrastructure today.

Relook: Spark Prime is CeDeFi margin lending for institutional borrowers. Most institutional strategies do not operate in one venue. Collateral sits with custodians, execution moves across exchanges, and exposure runs through DeFi protocols and traditional market infrastructure. Spark Prime extends overcollateralized lending across these environments. Powered by @ArkisXYZ margin technology, it operates within a defined risk framework, with positions visible in real time. The result is institutional financing infrastructure built around the full position, not one venue. Read more about Spark Prime👇

Crypto credit still treats risk as something reconstructed after the fact - collateral sits on one venue, positions on another and exposure only becomes visible once markets move. We think this is the wrong architecture for institutional markets.

There's a two-way migration happening this cycle that doesn't fit the dominant narrative. The same crypto-native institutions that ran the famous ETH looping trades on Aave - the trades that defined DeFi yield for two years in terms of capacity and strategy. Now, crypto institutions are building rails offchain into TradFi to access bigger capacity. Meanwhile, Crypto builders and more agile TradFi institutions are launching tokenized money market funds, tokenized credit, and tokenized everything, trying to capture demand onchain. Crypto's most sophisticated capital is leaving the rails just as TradFi is arriving on them. The actual buyers of those tokenized products are walking the other way. Tokenization narratives assume a one-way flow into onchain markets. The reality is bilateral, and right now the side with capital is going out. We are working on the unlock while others are trying to onboard a large enough onchain universe for things to become interesting. Arkis was always striving to be an infrastructure that bridges both sides - the most unique cross-margining capability across all relevant trading universes. We've been cooking something to connect this bilateral flow and bring efficiency to the market. No matter where it sits - onchain or offchain. More soon.

The kelpDAO incident reignited the "AAVE's multi-collateral model is fragile, go siloed" take. For me, this approach misses the point. Lenders want to pick their risk exposure → segregated markets. Borrowers want capital efficiency → portfolio margin. In my opinion, both are right. Siloed markets mean collateral drag, fragmented liquidity, and position-level liquidation risk instead of portfolio-level. That's exactly why institutions flooded into AAVE in the first place — portfolio margining is the default at every prime broker and every clearinghouse. Retreating to one collateral per market is a step backward for an industry whose entire pitch is capital efficiency. But the lender side isn't wrong either. Outsourcing your risk preference across N collateral types to a single curator ≠ expressing your own risk view. The real question isn't siloed vs. unified. It's: how do you let lenders define which collateral they back and at what size, while borrowers still cross-margin their full portfolio against the aggregate pool? That's the design problem worth solving. Not retreating to silos.