[RFC] Gauging Interest: RWA vaults for institutional allocators

,

This is an informal and short post to gauge sentiment and feedback about the creation of a new type of fleet (vault).

Now more that ever, the DeFi ecosystem is primed for institutional users to come on chain.

Though, it seems that while many are compelled by what DeFi has to offer, they are still on the fence from deploying capital in massive size within DeFi protocols.

Why is this?

Critical blockers seem to be:

  • Regulation: Its not clear what is above and below board.

  • Risk: DeFi is still seen as risky, even though it has weathered insane volatility, and even full blown fraud.

Where is the institutional demand?

Stablecoin’s have seen huge demand from institutions

Tokenized assets have seen significant demand from issuers and large allocators alike

Are DeFi protocols a bridge too far for institutional investors?

This question has recently emerged in my mind and I think the answer might, in the short term, be yes.

It is entirely possible that the financial product requirements for institutions who want to allocate capital onchain needs to be something a bit different than what most DeFi protocols offer today. Even though its highly likely that eventually they will come around to our DeFi native ways.

Specifically, it seems that these insituions want what they are used to but just the tokenized version.

Some examples:

The hybrid approach

One very inspiritng approach to this for me has been Maple Finance’s hybrid approach to combining TradFi needs and requirements with DeFi transparency and accessibility.


How might Lazy Summer Protocol attract initial institutional demand with its vaults?

RWA Vaults: Automated exposure to the worlds best tokenized assets

What if Lazy Summer could offer a vault that gave users exposure to world class tokenized yield from Securitize, Ondo, Franklin Templeton etc… continuously rebalancing, giving allocators diverisfied exposure to highly compliant sources of yield, fully onchain.

This vault would invest in a basket of tokenized real-world asset tokens, specifically tokenized U.S. Treasury and money-market funds – such as Ondo’s USDY, Superstate’s USTB, Franklin Templeton’s BENJI, etc. These assets represent onchain claims to safe, short-term instruments like Treasury bills or institutional money-market funds.

How it might work: Institutions or users deposit stablecoins (e.g. USDC) into the vault. The vault’s smart contract then allocates these funds across multiple RWA tokens. Allocation can be dynamic – for instance, rebalancing towards whichever RWA asset offers a slightly higher yield or better liquidity at the time.

Technical and regulatory constraints

Ofcourse the big blockers here are both technical and regulatory in nature:

Technical - How would the deposit asset be USDC given the underlying tokenized assets are all different?

Regulatory - Many tokenized assets require KYC or our only available to qualified purchasers, are there work arounds here for a DeFi protocol?

Both of these constraints are beyond me and this post, but as mentioned, it’s purpose is to gain feedback from many people within the community, but also hopefully from the teams mentioned to see if there might be way to partner on such a vault.


My basic question: Is this possible? is it valuable?

6 Likes

I think you’re exactly right here. It’s not that institutional allocators don’t believe in DeFi. It’s that the infrastructure, compliance constraints, and abstraction layers simply aren’t aligned with their current operational playbook yet. Offering tokenized aggregated exposure to familiar instruments could be a key bridge.

  • BlackRock’s BUIDL has already crossed $2.6b on Ethereum (source: rwa.xyz)
  • Ondo’s USDY sits above $435M on Ethereum (source: rwa.xyz)
  • Tokenized Treasuries overall have now exceeded $5.8B+ in value on Ethereum (source: rwa.xyz)

This to me seems like a clear signal of growing demand for regulated yield primitives onchain.

  • This is the major unknown. It’s worth engaging directly with Ondo, Securitize, Superstate, and others to explore whether an allowlisted vault smart contract could qualify for access (Ă  la some Maple deployments).
  • Alternatively, could we structure this as an opt-in vault requiring user KYC verification (e.g., via a third-party oracle or zero-knowledge proof of qualification (e.g.: self.xyz)?

I think it would make sense to begin mapping out not only technical feasibility but potential go-to-market angles. What type of institution would deposit into this? A crypto-native fund? A neobank? A DAO treasury?

To me Lazy Summer Protocol has leaned into composable experimentation from the start. Maybe we could test a small-scale pilot RWA vault gated to confirmed verified wallets, structured as an experiment in vault diversity (tracking its performance) rather than a major capital push from day one.

Personally, I am a fan on composable, permissionless, and immutable DeFi, so my usual ache starts at the KYC mention. Though, that shall not stifle the growth of the protocol. From the framing of this proposal it seems that the aim is to attract TVL from institutions, which would benefit the general userbase of Lazy Summer Protocol and its governaning body (Lazy Summer DAO) as well.

In short, I believe this idea is valuable, directionally aligned (road to $1b+ TVL), but technically and legally non-trivial.

Maybe Lazy Summer Protocol could help shorten that bridge considerably thanks to its simplicity, modularity, and allocation automation. Curious to hear thoughts of other @Recognized_Delegates on this topic.

–jensei

4 Likes

"I’m interested in this, but as with any new initiative, it requires some preliminary research. We need to determine the user eligibility for various platforms (and how does that correlate with pooled non KYCd assets):

  • Ondo: Accessible to Non-US Individuals & Organizations.
  • BUIDL: Restricted to U.S. Qualified Purchasers.
  • BENJI: The web app is limited to registered institutional clients, and the mobile app is not available in the EU.
  • Securitize: Marketing to our region is restricted due to regulations, though users can proactively view issuer information.

While easy, permissionless (or permissioned) access would be ideal from a technical standpoint, I believe the primary challange is ensuring legal and regulatory feasibility.

4 Likes

Key questions for me are all regulatory. The two KYC approaches I’m aware of re: RWA tokenisation are:

  • Enforcement of KYC’d wallets at the point of mint/redeem
  • KYC enforcement on transfer with pre transfer hooks

Most primary issuances seem to be offshored Reg D type issuances. Like @halaprix said, with restrictions enforced geographically (Geofencing).

If folks are thinking about Institutional Self-Managed vaults where capital is supplied by one party then I’d assume individual Arks could be KYC’d on the basis of the single entity passing KYC (KYB really).

If we’re thinking of public or semi-public vaults with vaults that back on to Arks that hold RWAs then I don’t know - and even if this is do-able it would be likely only be possible for RWAs that conform to the mint/redeem approach. Secondly, any FE (Summer Labs) would likely need to mirror the geofencing already in place with the primary issuer… and if there’s multiple different RWA tokens capture within the same fleet then it might be harder to find the intersection of all the different schemes. But, this is 100% lawyer territory and I’m no expert.

3 Likes

I am all for this proposal, and think there is demand there.

Before leg work is put in, do you guys have any institutional investors that would deploy capital?

Maybe create a task force on finding out the framework that is needed here to get this created?

2 Likes

inspiration: https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/04/30/tokenized-apollo-credit-fund-makes-defi-debut-with-levered-yield-strategy-by-securitize-gauntlet

1 Like