[RFC] Launch DAO Managed "Indexed" Vaults on the Lazy Summer Protocol

[chrisb]

1. Summary:

The following RFC has been co-authored along with @samehueasyou

It is proposed introducing a new category of public vaults on to the Lazy Summer Protocol called DAO-Managed “Indexed” Vaults. These vaults are explicitly positioned as access-first, higher-yield products, distinct from Block Analitica (BA) risk-curated vaults that prioritize risk‑adjusted yield.

DAO-Managed vaults aim to:

• Track a broad, competitive set of DeFi yield sources (“top of vaults.fyi” type yields)
• Use a transparent, rules-based framework instead of case‑by‑case expert curation
• Make the risk/return tradeoff extremely clear to users in product copy and UI

The intent is not to dilute BA’s risk brand, but to add a separate, clearly labeled product line for users who explicitly opt into higher‑risk yield access.

---

2. Context & Motivation:

Right now, the Lazy Summer Protocol offers public Vaults targetting the best Risk Adjusted Yields, which are risk-managed by Block Analitca. The protocol also offers institutional vaults to institutions which can either run the risk themselves, or outsource it to a third party to follow their set framework. However, there are many users in DeFi that are open to taking on a greater risk for a greater return - and it is these Dao Managed “Indexed” Vaults which could meet the needs of these users.

Today, the Lazy Vaults have a set of fantastic USPs, including the automated rebalancing into the highest yielding markets with automated diversification into the top tier protocols saving the users time and money. But a common set of feedback is that sometimes, with the risk caps and limited protocols onboarded, the yields are just not competitive enough. This puts users in a difficult place, and we have lost some users already, because they want the benefits that the Lazy Summer Protocol offers, but they want access to a wider set of protocols.

The DAO Managed “Indexed” vaults should be able to address these concerns with the DAO being able to quickly add (and remove if necessary) protocols that are offering more competitve yields, and quickly apply a easy to use and transparent framework which allows protocols and markets to quickly fall into a category for a set risk setup.

---

3. Proposal:

DAO-Managed vaults would follow objective, onchain verifiable inclusion rules rather than BA’s discretionary risk process. It would also use the AI-Powered keepers to manage the risk based on current liquidity of the underlying markets to set the ultimate deposit caps in real-time, so that if liquidity starts to be removed from a market, instead of BlockAnalitica needing to adjust parameters, the keepers would automatically start to withdraw liquidity too, maintaining a set share of liquidity (i.e. no more 30% of a markets liquidity can come from a the Summer Vault)

Categories
It is proposed to have three levels that each protocol, should it be approved, would be put into one of them, based on a framework (which is still WIP to finalise, based on comments to this RFC)

For these categories, it is expected to have fixed parameters such as the maximum vault share of the Vault, and, as described above, rely on the keepers to maintain the limits according to liquidity.

For example;
Category A - Max TVL of Vault Share: 95% / Max Rebalance Inflow/Outflow: 25M USD
Category B - Max TVL of Vault Share: 85% / Max Rebalance Inflow/Outflow: 15M USD
Category C - Max TVL of Vault Share: 65% / Max Rebalance Inflow/Outflow: 5M USD

So if a protocol, say Aave USDC was category A - up to 95% of all funds in the Vault could be deposited into Aave, so long as the Vault did not start to lend more than 30% of all the liquidity on Aave USDC market.

Framework
WIP, however high level thoughts;

• Yield sources among the top N (e.g. 20–30) by 30‑day APY on an agreed aggregator (e.g. Vaults.fyi)
• Minimum TVL / liquidity per market requirement (e.g. ≥ $5–10M)
• No rehypothecation for category A (or clearly bounded rehypothecation rules for B/C)
• Additional “hard filters” to be co‑designed with BA (e.g. protocol age, audit status, known critical dependencies)

Proposed initial scope
- Assets: ETH and USDC
- Networks: Ethereum mainnet and Base
Can be extended later if the framework proves robust.

Fees
Given that 20% of Vault fee’s currently go to BA for their Risk Management services, it could be that the fee’s for these vaults also reduces by 20%, or that the additional fee’s go to the DAO for the extra work that is being undertaken and potentially routed to Delegates via the Delegate Payouts each quarter.

How this would be communicated
At Summer.fi, we will design the UI product so that the difference between BA-managed and DAO-managed vaults is obvious at a glance:

• Categorization in UI
  • Tab / filter level distinction:
    • “Risk-Managed (BA Curated)” – focus on risk-adjusted yield, BA caps and monitoring
    • “DAO-Managed (Indexed)” – focus on broad access to DeFi yields, rules-based framework, less granular risk curation

Example;

Core value proposition copy

BA-curated:

Optimized for risk-adjusted yield, conservative caps, expert ongoing monitoring by BA.

DAO-managed:

Optimized for access to competitive DeFi yields under a transparent rules-based framework. Higher risk, less granular curation.

The goal is that no user can reasonably confuse a DAO-managed vault for a BA-risk‑curated product.

How DAO-Managed Vaults Differ from BA Risk-Curated Vaults
Key differences:

• Governance & responsibility
  • BA-curated: Yield sources and caps are curated and actively monitored by BA under their existing risk processes.
  • DAO-managed: Yield sources are selected by DAO governance using a predefined framework; BA brand is not attached.
• Selection process
  • BA-curated: Case‑by‑case assessment, deep protocol review, bespoke caps.
  • DAO-managed: Template / rules‑driven inclusion; any source meeting criteria can be added, subject to governance.
• Risk tooling
  • BA-curated: BA’s full quantitative and qualitative risk stack.
  • DAO-managed: Simplified template + automated monitoring, potentially using keeper infrastructure and on‑chain metrics.

---

4. Open Questions:

• Does this sound like something the DAO would like to move forward on
• What other things would the DAO want to see in the framework
• Are the proposed initial Assets and Networks

---

5. Next Steps:

• Gather community feedback
• Iterate based on discussion and complete the required framework
• If the community and @Recognized_Delegates are aligned, then the Labs Company, at the instruction of the Foundation based on this intent, can deploy relevant Vaults, and add the Lazy Summer DAO as Governor and Risk Curator - allowing the DAO to onboard the markets it would like.

[samehueasyou]

I am a big fan of this direction, so long as we can clearly mark on the ui the differences

[jensei]

Thanks for sharing this @chrisb (and @samehueasyou) overall, I’m broadly supportive of the idea of clearly separated, opt-in DAO-managed “Indexed” vaults for users who want broader yield access and are comfortable with higher risk. The emphasis on clear UI, copy, and brand separation from BA-curated vaults will be super important here.

I agree @BlockAnalitica brand shouldn’t be attached, but I do think BA co-designing the hard filters makes sense to avoid unintended protocol or reputational risk. Ideally we would have some sort of automated platform where anyone can input details needed which will be then used to assess and create a summary of the results for a strategy to be included.

I would like to further explore the failure modes, buffers, and emergency behavior during problems that may arise within strategies present in such vault. Here I think the guardian setup should be set in stone before deployment of any such vaults.

[Raphael_Anode]

Good direction. However, there are multiple similar products on the market already, and it’s important to think about how to differentiate here. For instance Reserve Protocol has some similar thinking, although no high-risk vaults have been established there. Here’s how their fabolous Open Stablecoin Index is thinking about rebalancing. Some good food for thought there: [RFC] The OPEN Universe & Rules Upgrade v1.1 - OPEN Stablecoin DTF - Reserve Protocol Forum

[pete]

I also thought of Reserve Protocol when reading this proposal. This one reminds me of Reserve’s dgnETH, which sadly is being sunset

[samehueasyou]

sadly as in sad to see it go, or becasue it was not a good product?

• what was good about it?
• what was bad about it?

[samehueasyou]

thank you so much! very insightful

[pete]

Sad to see it go. I thought it was a cool product

[Raphael_Anode]

The initial creator explains it in detail in the post linked by @pete. To summarize:

ABC Labs announced the planned sunset of Degen ETH (dgnETH) after deciding to phase out incentives for the dgnETH/ETH+ liquidity pool on Curve, a move that undermines dgnETH’s core value proposition. Because dgnETH’s two-token design depends on ongoing liquidity incentives to generate excess yield for sdgnETH stakers, removing emissions makes the product economically unviable.

[BlockAnalitica]

BA Labs framework design proposal for SummerFi DAO-managed Fleets

As per the initiative to launch DAO-managed fleets, SummerFi DAO aims to introduce a new category of fleets to capture more risk-averse users, distinct from Block Analitica risk-curated vaults that prioritize risk‑adjusted yield. “DAO-Managed vaults aim to: Track a broad, competitive set of DeFi yield sources (“top of vaults.fyi” type yields) Use a transparent, rules-based framework instead of case‑by‑case expert curation Make the risk/return tradeoff extremely clear to users in product copy …

[Sixty]

Hey @chrisb, apologies for coming in so late. This is an excellent idea, and should serve Summer users with a high risk appetite or even complement the BA curated vaults (Deposit 80% of your capital into BA vault, 20% into Indexed vaults).

@chrisb

4. Open Questions:

• Does this sound like something the DAO would like to move forward on
• What other things would the DAO want to see in the framework
• Are the proposed initial Assets and Networks

• Yes, this should forward.
• Technical review for proposed ARKs (Protocol overview, tokenomics, liquidity, security features, etc.).
• Agree with ETH and USDC, on Ethereum mainnet and Base. I would also propose adding USDT and BTC (yields for both are not that great though) and adding the HyperEVM network due to competitive native APYs.

Aside from that, a few questions, namely:

1. Who will be accountable for proposing new ARKs and, most importantly, reviewing existing ARKs for removal/deprecation?

2. Is it possible for @BlockAnalitica to provide some risk analysis training to a cohort of delegates to ensure adequate risk curation?

3. Due to the inherent increased risk, should we consider having some sort of security council that can act quickly in case of any security incident/protocol exploits etc.

In addition to a security council, should we also consider having an insurance fund of sorts?

4. While the goal of Indexed vaults is to provide higher yields than BA vaults, how do we avoid a purely yield-chasing mentality, as this might eventually lead to getting rekt?

5. The name ‘Indexed’ might not properly convey that these vaults are meant to be providing competitive higher yields, perhaps we can use something else. Degen obviously comes to mind, but that name also implies extremely high risk

[chrisb]

Thanks @Sixty for the detailed response here.

@Sixty

Who will be accountable for proposing new ARKs and, most importantly, reviewing existing ARKs for removal/deprecation?

This will ultimately all be the DAO, but the Summer Labs Co will take an active role in analyzing and proposing potential new Vaults and Arks. I think it should be expected that a monthly, somewhat high level, review of existing markets against the proposed framework is done and posted by the Labs Co, but it will be up to delegates to vote for any changes that take place.

@Sixty

Is it possible for @BlockAnalitica to provide some risk analysis training to a cohort of delegates to ensure adequate risk curation?

I think this is probably ok, but it would be for @BlockAnalitica to answer fully. As the linked above post refers, they will produce a framework, and periodically update this as overall market conditions/sentiment changes. This framework should provide some insight into what Delegates need to be on the lookout for.

@Sixty

Due to the inherent increased risk, should we consider having some sort of security council that can act quickly in case of any security incident/protocol exploits etc.

In addition to a security council, should we also consider having an insurance fund of sorts?

100% - and I think @jensei is leading on this ‘Guardian’ setup which will see Guardians provide this safety net through a proposed multisig. Re. the Insurance Fund - I think this is a good idea but at the current scale I think makes little sense. The earnings right now by the protocol are quite low, and would take a long time for a meaningful amount to be captured that would provide any real value.

@Sixty

While the goal of Indexed vaults is to provide higher yields than BA vaults, how do we avoid a purely yield-chasing mentality, as this might eventually lead to getting rekt?

I think this is ultimately down to the decision and risk appetite of the main delegates and DAO. I think the proposal of the risk framework from BA will help with this, but it will be down to the DAO to stay on top of this.

@Sixty

The name ‘Indexed’ might not properly convey that these vaults are meant to be providing competitive higher yields, perhaps we can use something else. Degen obviously comes to mind, but that name also implies extremely high risk

I agree - although I think if the stated aim is to try and provide yield from a specific subset of the market (top 20 yields above 10M TVL from vaults.fyi) then perhaps it does. It does not need to be degen, but I think the description and marketing of the vaults is important to not mislead people. @samehueasyou probably has a lot of input into this specific discussion.

[chrisb]

Thanks to everyone here for the feedback and discussion. And especially thanks to @BlockAnalitica for their proposal of the risk Framework.

What I’d like to do here is put down a proposal for the next steps and to gain alignment around initial vault (not arks) parameters to ensure as a DAO we are aligned and we can then proceed with the first votes this Wednesday 28th Jan.

In summary, I would like to propose we move forward with the setup and creation of the DAO Managed Vaults in order to launch them at the earliest opportunity.

Risk Framework
Move BlockAnalitica Framework Proposal to SIP for the upfront 25,000 USDC payment to create the Risk Framework needed for the DAO Managed Vaults.

Key Vault Params

• Vault Fee’s → I would like to propose that these Vaults have the same Vault Fee’s as the actively managed vaults (1% stables, 0.3% volatile) however with a different expense structure;

  • Proposed tip streams (expenses as a % of income from fees);
    • Summer.fi (Labs Co) via the Foundation: 30% (Same as the current vaults) to continue to cover costs to operate the UI, associated infrastructure and various costs associated with marketing and growth.
    • BlockAnalitica: 5%, as proposed in their Risk Framework
    • Guardians: 15% - I think these vaults serve as a good place to pay the DAO approved guardians for their ongoing work, which on these vaults, will serve as the first line of defence of any issues
    • This leaves 50% of the fee to be used by the protocol, which I propose goes firstly towards the existing referral and integration costs already approved by the DAO, but accepting these vaults into it too → and then the rest to the DAO, forming part of the SUMR token holder revenue share.

• Keepers → I propose the same keepers are enabled as the existing Actively Managed Vaults, currently operated by Summer.fi and under address: 0xc2a8467a52Fec8383c424149000cf384de9Ba1B5

• Guardian Role → I propose adding the Guardian role to the Vaults, ensuring it can pause all markets if required. Members of the guardian role currently under discussion here: [RFC] Establish Guardian Module & Emergency Risk Controls

  • I propose that the Vaults should not be activated until a guardian multisig is approved and live from the DAO.
  • I also propose that a new function is established within the DAO Managed Vaults/Arks that allow the Guardians to set the DepositCaps to any ark market to 0 in the event of a market event with any of the supported protocols or markets. The Guardians should not have any other Risk Manager roles, and it should only be up to the DAO to re-enable a positive depositCap after the Guardian has set it to 0. No other parameters should be given to the Guardian beyond the existing pauses etc.

Timings

28-Jan-26

• Promote BA Risk Framework to SIP

Week of 2-Feb-26

• Deploy Vaults to the following chains;
  • Base - USDC / ETH
  • Ethereum - USDC / ETH
• Initial Arks proposed to the forum (without risk params) for deployment the following week

Week of 9-Feb-26

• Agree the initial arks risk params as per the new Risk Framework
• Deploy first arks
• Aim to have Guardians live, or at minimum proposed too
• Promote to SIP the onboarding and first set of risk params of new markets

Week of 16-Feb-26

• Go live with DAO Managed Vaults and the first arks

Tagging @Recognized_Delegates here for your feedback on plans.

Unless any major concerns raised, I will promote to SIP later on Tuesday the vote for the BA Framework Proposal.

[jensei]

thank you @chrisb for outlining the process and timeline here

I think the sequencing here is important risk framework first, guardians in place, then activation as it potentially sets precedent for how we do DAO-launched products going forward. I am also aligned here with your proposed vault fee tips streams and use of summerfi keepers network.

Am definitely in support of moving the risk framework to SIP as outlined and continuing toward initial DAO-managed vault deployment.

[MasterMojo]

As a delegate, I’m in favor of exploring this RFC. It creates good product differentiation and could drive meaningful TVL growth.

A few quick questions:

• Any proposed initial yield sources/chains, or allocation caps to limit downside?

• How would governance work for adjustments (e.g., DAO votes to tweak rules or add sources)?

• Estimated timeline and any $SUMR incentives tied to these vaults?

Thanks for the proposal!

[Ceazor]

I like this idea. but, IMHO, the front end just needs to be VERY conspicuous.

maybe even separate pages/tabs

[chrisb]

@MasterMojo

Any proposed initial yield sources/chains, or allocation caps to limit downside?

I think the aim is to perhaps try and find the top 20 yields on vaults.fyi with at least 10M in TVL and add these to the proposed framework. With regards to chains, the plan is to launch on Ethereum and Base initially, as these have been the two main networks for growth so far.

Re. Allocation Caps - these will come from the Risk Framework by BlockAnalitica, but the initial idea being that there might be 3 categories and each market either fits into one of the three, or not at all.

@MasterMojo

How would governance work for adjustments (e.g., DAO votes to tweak rules or add sources)?

Similar to the last part above, but the DAO will look to follow the Risk Framework, which may be periodically updated by BlockAnalitica. I don’t foresee the DAO making small adjustments or anything each week - at most, perhaps a monthly review for any strategies that have fallen outside of the categories parameters.

I do imagine there may be a few votes a month for adding new markets, at least at the start, but then it may settle.

@MasterMojo

• Estimated timeline and any $SUMR incentives tied to these vaults?

Timeline was in my previous post, which aims to go live week of the 16th Feb. with the framework hopefully finalised week of the 9th.

I suspect there can be a similar level of rewards as to the other vaults, but should be taken into account when setting the new rewards.

[Sixty]

@chrisb

What I’d like to do here is put down a proposal for the next steps and to gain alignment around initial vault (not arks) parameters to ensure as a DAO we are aligned and we can then proceed with the first votes this Wednesday 28th Jan.

In summary, I would like to propose we move forward with the setup and creation of the DAO Managed Vaults in order to launch them at the earliest opportunity.

Risk Framework
Move BlockAnalitica Framework Proposal to SIP for the upfront 25,000 USDC payment to create the Risk Framework needed for the DAO Managed Vaults.

I think we can proceed with this; there is sufficient alignment IMO.

@chrisb

Key Vault Params

• Vault Fee’s → I would like to propose that these Vaults have the same Vault Fee’s as the actively managed vaults (1% stables, 0.3% volatile) however with a different expense structure;
  • Proposed tip streams (expenses as a % of income from fees);
    • Summer.fi (Labs Co) via the Foundation: 30% (Same as the current vaults) to continue to cover costs to operate the UI, associated infrastructure and various costs associated with marketing and growth.
    • BlockAnalitica: 5%, as proposed in their Risk Framework
    • Guardians: 15% - I think these vaults serve as a good place to pay the DAO approved guardians for their ongoing work, which on these vaults, will serve as the first line of defence of any issues
    • This leaves 50% of the fee to be used by the protocol, which I propose goes firstly towards the existing referral and integration costs already approved by the DAO, but accepting these vaults into it too → and then the rest to the DAO, forming part of the SUMR token holder revenue share.

Vault Fees look good as well, looking forward to further clarification on the Guardian’s role. @jensei ‘s initial RFC on Establish a Guardian Module did not have DAO Managed Vaults in mind, so hopefully the responsibilities could be expanded on further. Personally, I would like to see:

1. Active risk monitoring and review of BA’s risk framework for the vaults.
2. Active analysis of promising new Vaults and ARKs, including RFCs to include them (I know you suggested Labs Co could do this), but might be better served by Guardians.

@chrisb

Initial Arks proposed to the forum (without risk params) for deployment the following week

I forgot to ask this earlier, but is it expected that DAO Managed Vault’s ARKs differ from those of Lower and Higher Risk vaults? (If an ARK is already included in a Lower / Higher Risk vault, it should not be up for consideration for DAO Managed Vaults)

[chrisb]

The vote for engaging BlockAnalitica and starting the Risk Framework is now live (with voting starting (30th Jan 26): [SIP5.19] Engage BlockAnalitica to create the DAO Managed Vaults Risk Framework