Vaults give funds a native onchain structure. A digital transfer agent adds the rest of what a regulated fund needs: the shareholder register, investor onboarding, transfer controls and investor servicing. Put both on the same stack and the whole fund lifecycle can be automated, from subscription to redemption. What that looks like: - the register and the onchain holdings are the same record - onboarding status decides who can subscribe and transfer - transfer restrictions are enforced by the share token itself - subscriptions, redemptions and investor servicing run programmatically - the share can plug into wallets, markets and apps while ownership and servicing stay in sync So a regulated fund can run onchain with far less manual work in between. Excited to build this with @itsjawknee___ .

Crypto needs to stop throwing tech terms at finance people, and also actually understand the normal lifecycle of financial agreements. I put together the TCO framework to standardize how we talk about the product lifecycles in both tradfi and defi 👇

Centrifuge started almost 10 years ago with the vision of tokenizing individual assets, securitizing these and offering diversified products to investors. Bringing the entire lifecycle of credit products onchain. This vision was too early then, but is quickly becoming reality now. Excited to build with this.

Happy to share this one. I formally verified the Centrifuge core with @Certora Prover: 19 verification scenes, and every rule is backed by a mutation to prove the specs catch real bugs. Thanks to the Centrifuge team for a great collaboration. Glad to see FV becoming part of their ongoing security process.

Lots of good discussion on this already, and it's an important one. The comment I'd zoom in on is where Paul puts every vault that deploys cross-chain into the discretionary bucket. For most cross-chain vaults today that's fair. Bridging liquidity, updating NAV per chain, and reconciling accounting across chains all put more weight on the manager's judgment. But that reliance comes from the architecture, not from being multi-chain. At Centrifuge a pool is one balance sheet deployed across many chains from a single point of control: - The mandate sits in an Onchain Execution Policy that classifies every manager action, with timelocks and sentinels that can cancel a pending change, similar to Morpho Vaults. One policy covers every chain. - Cross-chain messages are verified against several independent interop providers, so a pool depends on no single provider - NAV and double-entry accounting are computed in one place rather than produced per chain and reconciled That gets you to a vault that operates across many chains and is still noncustodial, with real investor protections.

love brian but ATPs are not an apples-to-apples comparison to vaults. while its good rage bait, it is just making everyone more confused everything in defi comes down to "strategy" and "custody". a strategy is a managed set of allocations across contracts, and custody sits both above and below the strategy (how do you "hold" a position in the strategy, and how does the strategy "hold" positions across other contracts). The primary ATP strategy today (an ETF) is safer than a variety of strategies run by vaults. My mental comparison of glider today is against my metamask or coinbase account, not against some steakhouse vault. When glider gets to openly creating and managing strategies that ATPs can allocated into, then we are getting closer to an apples comparison. I believe the complexity of contracts/oracles is unavoidable, you can abstract it with an API sure but it is still there and institutions will still want to audit down through every layer (they aren't going to just sign off on your api). It's not a problem you can just run away from. I also know I tweet large token graphs often, but more contracts != more risk always. For example, centrifuge has like 30+ contracts just to manage bridging of an asset because they want fallbacks/gates/agreement across different bridges (chainlink, layerzero, and axelar). And if you want to allow different strategies, you have to segment what operations are allowed by what operators (this is the bulk of contracts for any protocol/vault). Privy wallets give glider full authorization to do anything they want on behalf of the user, but eventually that will have to become more segmented like a policied weiroll solution which a few other teams are close to launching (like makinax). I'm seeing enough confusion on the timeline that it's probably worth me writing an article about the layers of strategy, custody, and operations in defi today.

Most vaults nowadays encode rules for allocations either through smart contracts or merkle trees. What many miss is encoding rules for everything else. There is often one or more ops wallets that controls price, can change the rules (merkle tree root hash), mint tokens, etc. This is often scattered across many different smart contract entrypoints, making it hard to audit and secure. Moreover, vault frameworks generally define a specific structure (allocation framework, specific set of roles and their capabilities, ...), limiting flexibility and what can be built on top. We've been building a new approach with the Onchain Execution Policy, where: - All sensitive actions go through a single entrypoint and single smart contract (the policy) - The policy and any timelocked actions can be easily reviewed and audited by anyone - Changing the rules (updating policy) has a significantly longer timelock This increases flexibility (you can experiment with any approach, whether that is smart contracts or workflows encoded in merkle tree leaves), while enforcing the policy across the system. And best of all, this will be fully multi-chain native: the policy will be enforced on the vault's hub chain, and any authorized timelocked actions will be sent cross-chain to all spokes.

Once Centrifuge's new vault stack is public, I'll drop a banger on Centrifuge's stack vs Veda Lab's BoringVault, compared on every parameter of the Complete Vault. Complete Vault's parameters: Drafting it now. Stay tuned.

ERC-8161 is now finalised, enabling secondary markets for vault redemptions orders. Co-authored with @cainosullivan. Excited to see how this will extend the composability of new vaults coming to market. At @centrifuge we certainly have some unique new use cases in the pipeline!

We’re proud to partner with @centrifuge as we take an important step in @NYLIManagement's tokenization journey. For more than 180 years, we have remained focused on our commitment to long-term investment outcomes over short-term noise. This is bedrock and will not change. #Tokenization# is the infrastructure that lets us keep serving our clients for the next century. Thank you to @itsbhaji, @anemoyanil and the entire team, who have been exceptional partners to me and @hey_elizabethy as we worked through this project. More to come and excited for what's next.

Out of 8,100+ proposed ERCs, @OpenZeppelin has only implemented a tiny handful of token standards: ERC-20, ERC-721, ERC-1155, ERC-4626, ERC-6909 ERC-7540 is joining that list: the async vault standard is now part of the toolkit most of DeFi runs on.

+1 Moving 100s of billions and eventually trillions of assets onchain will require consolidation of base layer protocols, and innovation in constrained hooks, callbacks and other pluggable modules on top of those base layer protocols.

We just announced the Onchain Portfolio Manager: an onchain VM-based smart contract system for executing investment strategies across chains, with * ERC-6909 accounting tokens for onchain accounting async and bridging flows * Slippage, approval and circuit breaker guards * Dedicated UI for allocating to any asset on any chain Take the leading multi-chain tokenization & vaults infrastructure, and add integrations for any asset on any chain, with security standards that institutions expect. That's Centrifuge v3.2.