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.