Building StableYield: Connecting On-Chain Vaults to Real-World Settlement

Real-world asset tokenization is more than issuing a token

Issuing a token on the Ethereum blockchain is easy. Pick a name, a symbol and the number of decimal places, grab an ERC-20 contract template and deploy it. Start to finish, this can be done in an afternoon and you have a token available on-chain ready for minting. The most basic example is a meme token, where its value is largely in the eye of the beholder.

This isn’t the case when tokenizing real world assets or issuing stablecoins. Value comes from the rights that ownership of the token gives you in the real world. While a blockchain transaction record can tell you who holds the token it doesn’t tell you what legal rights you have and how you can enforce them in the real world.

Those factors will be totally dependent on whether your protocol has complied with real-world legal and regulatory requirements with respect to the protocol’s procedures for investor KYC/KYB, issuance and redemptions, valuation and custody. As a result, it is extremely important that these real-world constraints and requirements are reflected in the protocol’s design.

On March 26, 2026, Canada’s Stablecoin Act received Royal Assent. When brought into force, it will prohibit stablecoin issuers from paying interest or yield to holders. This means that holding QCAD, CADD or CADC will not itself generate a return. A holder seeking a money-market return must move into a separate investment product, which today may require off-ramping to fiat or converting into a US-dollar product and accepting foreign-exchange risk. I started designing StableYield to remove that friction by allowing Canadian-dollar stablecoins to be used to subscribe for tokenized money-market fund shares. The stablecoin remains the settlement rail; the return comes from the underlying fund.

In this post I would like to share how real world legal and regulatory requirements are reflected in the architecture and operational design of the StableYield protocol and how the designed on-chain ownership and controls connect to the money market fund’s regulated activities - some of which need to take place off-chain.

A tokenized investment can still be a security.

Canadian securities regulators have made clear that securities legislation can apply to token offerings and tokenized securities. Whether it applies, depends on the rights represented by the token and the complete structure of the offering - not simply the technology or terminology used.

What are tokenized vaults?

The vault standards used by StableYield

ERC-4626 defines a common interface for tokenized vaults that accept one underlying ERC-20 asset and issue shares.

ERC-7540 extends that model with asynchronous deposit and redemption requests. An investor can submit a request, wait while pricing and settlement take place, and claim the resulting shares or assets once the request becomes claimable.

StableYield uses ERC-4626 as the foundation for its tokenized vault and ERC-7540 to support deposit and redemption requests that settle asynchronously.

For readers new to DeFi and tokenization, some definitions may be useful.

Smart contract: Code compiled and deployed to a blockchain address. A smart contract can hold and transfer tokens that conform to supported Ethereum token standards. Users and other smart contracts can call its public functions, subject to the permissions and conditions enforced by the contract.

Protocol: A collection of smart contracts that together provide application-like functionality for a particular use case. Governance may be controlled by designated operators, multisignature accounts, token-holder voting or a combination of these arrangements.

Tokenization: The process of representing an asset with on-chain tokens that can be minted and burned. When the asset’s value depends on real world rights, external legal, regulatory and data requirements must still be satisfied for the token to carry that value.

There has been a lot of recent media attention around blockchain vaults. Several major infrastructure providers (Aave and Morpho) now offer products that let investors earn yield on their digital assets using vault-based smart contracts.

A simple ERC-20 token can represent ownership of a real world asset, such as a stablecoin or a security. Once a protocol needs to accept deposits, issue proportional shares, enforce eligibility, and settle investment and redemption requests that may take time to clear, a vault smart contract becomes the natural place to put that logic.

The bank vault analogy

Most people understand a physical bank vault. You sign a contract with your bank, receive a key to a safety-deposit box, and place your valuables inside. Other customers do the same with their own boxes. You cannot access their assets, and if you lose your key the bank can probably arrange a replacement.

A vault smart contract works on a similar principle. Multiple investors may deposit assets into the same vault, but each investor controls their own position through the private keys associated with their wallet. One investor cannot use their wallet to redeem another investor’s shares. Subject to the vault’s rules, the investor can use those shares to request the return of their proportional interest in the pooled assets, adjusted for the vault’s performance.

The important difference is that the investor does not retain ownership of the specific tokens originally deposited. Those assets are pooled and may be deployed according to the vault’s investment strategy. In return, the investor holds vault shares representing their claim on the pool. For a real-world asset vault, redemption may also depend on eligibility, valuation and settlement processes that cannot be completed immediately on-chain.

In practice a simple vault usually exposes three core functionalities:

1. Deposit: Accepts a specified asset, validates the amount, and issues receipt tokens (shares) representing the investor’s proportional claim on the pool.

2. Redeem: Allows the investor to return shares and claim the corresponding underlying assets, adjusted for vault performance.

3. Investment: Optionally deploys the pooled collateral into other on-chain assets, other vaults, or tokenized real world assets. Any returns must come back in a form that can be converted into the original deposit asset. This is the part of the contract an investor must check most carefully against the advertised strategy and governance rules. Especially, as it will determine how assets will be valued and the specific investment risks a depositor may be exposed to.

Where the analogy stops working

A smart contract vault is not a collection of individual safety deposit boxes. Investor assets are normally pooled; the investor receives shares that represent a proportional interest in that pool. A wallet key authorizes the investor’s on-chain instructions, but it does not necessarily give direct control over every underlying asset. In a real world asset vault the securities themselves may still be held by an external custodian, and redemptions may depend on eligibility checks, valuation and settlement processes that occur off-chain.

The architecture of an RWA vault is therefore more involved than a pure crypto-native vault. Compliance requirements, custody arrangements and delayed settlement all have to be reflected in the protocol’s design.

With that basic picture of a vault in place, the next sections examine the specific architectural and trust decisions required to reflect the protocol’s operation in the Canadian regulatory environment.

What StableYield moves on-chain

Recording a decision is not the same as making it.

StableYield protocol does not independently perform KYC, calculate the fund’s NAV, or inspect assets held at a custodian. Authorized external parties perform those functions. The protocol records their attestations, verifies that they relate to the correct vault and settlement cycle, and prevents the workflow from proceeding until the required evidence is present.

StableYield is meant to let an on-chain investor earn a money-market style return, without pretending the compliance and settlement work around that product can be ignored.

In practice this means moving selected parts of the control, accounting and record-keeping workflow (work normally performed by a fund manager, fund administrator or transfer agent) - onto the blockchain. The protocol does not perform every underlying function. In some cases it simply records an approved external decision; in others it enforces a rule or controls when the next step is allowed to occur.

The practical result is that an investor’s request is no longer visible only inside the private records of a fund administrator. Once submitted, the request becomes an on-chain object with an observable status. The protocol can then require that certain conditions (compliance, pricing, settlement evidence) are satisfied before ownership or payment is finalized.

The kinds of information and controls that become visible or enforceable on-chain include share issuance and redemption, request status, role-based permissions, eligibility decisions, approved valuation data, and the existence of settlement or custody attestations. Administrative and emergency controls are also recorded so that actions can be reviewed later.

Authority is deliberately limited. Each external party is given only the ability to supply the information or take the actions that fall within its responsibility. No single party should be able to control every input required to complete a settlement cycle.

Some of these workflows are asynchronous; the protocol must accommodate ordinary processing delays and real world failures. Other functions remain entirely off-chain because they depend on regulated entities, confidential information or legal processes that a smart contract cannot perform.

What remains off-chain

While StableYield moves many of the controls and records associated with operating a fund on-chain, there are functions that a smart contract cannot perform independently. Identity documents, legal agreements, fund administration, asset purchases, banking and custody all continue to exist in the real world.

The design objective is therefore not to force every part of the investment process onto a blockchain. It is to connect the off-chain parties who still do that work to an on-chain protocol that can record and enforce the decisions they make.

Investor identification and compliance

A smart contract can see which wallet is interacting with a vault, but it cannot determine who controls that wallet, where the person or entity is resident, whether they are subject to sanctions, or whether they meet the eligibility rules of a particular product.

KYC, KYB and related compliance reviews therefore remain off-chain. Once those reviews are complete, an authorized party records the resulting eligibility decision so the protocol can enforce it. The protocol itself does not prescribe a single compliance standard; different issuers may apply different requirements ranging from simple sanctions checks to full identity verification and investor classification.

Importantly, the vault never needs the underlying personal information. It only needs a reliable, current answer to the question of whether a given wallet is permitted to interact with the protocol. In that sense the compliance process functions as an oracle: it takes real world decisions and supplies the protocol with a result it can act on.

Fund management and asset purchases

The choice of which assets the fund should hold remains with the real world fund manager. StableYield does not select investments, run a portfolio strategy, or decide whether any particular security is suitable.

Once subscriptions have been accepted, the purchase of the underlying assets still occurs through the existing financial system. The same is true in reverse when assets must be sold to meet redemptions. The protocol’s role is limited to recording the investor’s request, applying the relevant controls, and ensuring that transaction finalization cannot occur until the necessary external evidence has been supplied.

Custody and settlement evidence

The underlying securities are held by an authorized custodian outside the blockchain. A smart contract can observe on-chain movements of stablecoins, but it cannot inspect a custodian’s books or independently confirm that the fund has received final ownership of the corresponding real world assets.

StableYield therefore depends on authorized attestations that the required external steps have been completed. An on-chain payment proves only that stablecoins moved; it does not prove that the matching real world transaction settled. The protocol is designed to wait for the appropriate external confirmation before treating a request as complete.

Valuation and NAV

Valuation is likewise an off-chain responsibility. The protocol itself does not calculate the value of government securities, money market instruments or other real world assets.

The fund administrator determines and approves the Net Asset Value according to the applicable accounting policies. That approved figure is then made available to the protocol so that share issuance and redemption amounts can be calculated. The protocol can check that the information comes from an authorized source and relates to the correct period, but it cannot verify every underlying input used by the administrator. Accuracy of the NAV remains a trust dependency on the administrator and its processes.

Banking and legal records

Banking arrangements and stablecoin issuance sit outside StableYield entirely. The protocol does not issue the settlement asset, control any issuer’s reserves, or operate the banking rails that move value between the stablecoin issuer, the fund and the custodian.

The legal rights represented by the vault shares are created by the fund’s legal structure, its offering documents and the subscription agreements signed by investors. The blockchain provides an auditable record of ownership; whether that record is recognized as conferring those legal rights depends on the terms of those legal documents.

These dependencies are treated as explicit parts of the trust model. Specific external parties remain responsible for compliance decisions, valuation, settlement, reconciliation and custody evidence. Because those parties and the banking system do not operate continuously, the protocol is built around asynchronous, business-day settlement rather than the assumption that a real world investment can always be completed inside a single blockchain transaction.

Why real world settlement is asynchronous

One of the major differences between a crypto-native DeFi transaction and an investment in a real world asset is the time required to complete the transaction.

A conventional on-chain swap can be completed atomically. The tokens are exchanged in a single blockchain transaction and either the entire transaction succeeds or none of it does. The smart contract has access to the assets being exchanged and can determine the result without waiting for a bank, custodian or fund administrator.

A real world investment does not operate in the same way. An investor may submit a request on-chain at any time, yet the underlying fund may process subscriptions and redemptions only at defined cutoff times. The NAV must still be calculated and approved, money may need to move through external settlement rails, and a custodian may need to confirm that the corresponding assets have been received or released.

These steps often span multiple systems and involve parties that do not operate continuously. It is therefore unrealistic for the vault to accept a request and immediately issue final shares at a price that has not yet been determined.

StableYield accommodates this reality through an asynchronous request and settlement process. A submitted request remains in a pending state while the necessary external conditions such as eligibility, pricing and settlement evidence are completed. Only when those conditions are satisfied does the protocol allow the request to be finalized and the investor to receive shares or redemption proceeds.

If required information is delayed, missing or inconsistent, the request simply stays pending. The protocol does not finalize ownership or payment on the assumption that the external steps will eventually occur.

The pending state is intentional. It represents the period during which the real world parts of the transaction are still being completed. Rather than issuing shares (or releasing proceeds) immediately and hoping settlement follows, the protocol waits until the necessary external evidence is available.

This matters for both sides of the transaction. The movement of an investor’s stablecoins on-chain does not prove that the fund has obtained ownership of the corresponding real world assets; finalizing a subscription too early could leave the investor holding shares that are not yet fully backed. Likewise, locking or burning an investor’s shares does not guarantee that the fund has sold the required assets or that the stablecoins needed for redemption have arrived.

Asynchronous settlement also gives the protocol a controlled way to respond when something does not proceed as expected. If the NAV is late or unexpected, settlement evidence is missing, a transfer fails, or reconciliation shows a difference, the right response is not to force the transaction through. The request should remain pending until the issue is resolved or the request is withdrawn under the applicable process.

Pending does not mean lost.

A pending request remains visible on-chain with an observable status. In appropriate circumstances it may be possible for the investor to withdraw the request before it has been committed to external settlement, or for a pending request to be moved to another eligible holder. Any such arrangements remain subject to eligibility rules, transfer restrictions and applicable securities laws.

Attestations: connecting StableYield to the real world

Some of the most important factual information relied upon by StableYield originates outside the blockchain. The design therefore needs to address both the integrity of that information and the availability of the external parties and systems that provide it.

StableYield connects to external processes through authorized records and attestations. These can include an investor eligibility decision, an approved NAV or confirmation that the required settlement activity has been completed.

The protocol checks that the information comes from a source authorized for that purpose and that it relates to the relevant product and period. If required information is missing, stale or inconsistent, the settlement workflow cannot proceed.

An attestation does not independently prove that the underlying real world event occurred. It records that an authorized party reported the event and accepted responsibility for that statement. StableYield can control how the statement is used, but it cannot inspect a custodian’s books or reproduce a fund administrator’s valuation process.

This is the central trust boundary. StableYield does not eliminate reliance on the fund administrator, compliance provider, custodian or settlement operator. It limits the information each party can supply, records the actions taken, and prevents settlement from advancing when the necessary evidence is absent or inconsistent.

That brings us to the next question: which parties does StableYield continue to trust, what authority does each of them have, and what happens if one of them provides incorrect information?

The StableYield trust model

The term “trust model” describes the assumptions that must remain true for a system to operate correctly. In simple terms, it identifies who and what StableYield still relies on, what those parties are permitted to do, and what could happen if they fail to perform their responsibilities.

Blockchain protocols are often described as trustless, but that description does not apply neatly to real world assets. A smart contract can execute its programmed rules without relying on a person to maintain an internal ledger, yet it cannot eliminate the institutions responsible for issuing, managing, valuing and custodying the underlying investment.

So the goal is not to remove every source of trust. It is to explicitly recognize the protocol’s trust dependencies, provide role-based limits on what a participant can do and leave an observable record of how the authority gets used.

The principal trust dependencies

StableYield’s principal trust dependencies can be grouped into four categories:

Dependency	What StableYield relies on	What the protocol can do	What remains outside the protocol
Fund and legal structure	The vault shares represent valid rights in an investment operated according to its mandate	Enforce the configured issuance, redemption and transfer workflow	Create the legal rights or manage the underlying investments
Compliance and valuation	Eligibility decisions, NAV and accounting information are accurate and current	Enforce recorded decisions and restrict inputs to authorized sources	Independently identify an investor or reproduce the complete valuation process
Custody and settlement	Reported assets exist and the required external transactions have been completed	Require authorized evidence before the on-chain workflow proceeds	Inspect a custodian’s books or force a bank, issuer or custodian to complete a transaction
Protocol and governance	Roles, configuration changes, upgrades, the blockchain and smart contracts operate as intended	Enforce permissions and record governed actions	Eliminate contract defects, compromised keys, collusion or network disruption

The protocol can confirm that information came from an authorized source and is being used for the intended purpose. It cannot determine whether that source was dishonest, relied on incorrect records, or had its own systems compromised. A digitally valid attestation can therefore still contain incorrect real world information. The signature proves who provided the information. It does not prove the information is true.

StableYield also relies on the parties and systems involved remaining available. A fund administrator may publish information late, a custodian may delay confirmation or a payment may be interrupted. In those circumstances, the protocol can prevent an incomplete settlement from being finalized, but it cannot force an external institution to complete its work.

The protocol design prefers a delayed settlement over one completed without the required evidence. This protects the accounting integrity of the vault, but investors remain exposed to operational delays involving the fund and its service providers.

Technical trust and legal accountability

Not every trust dependency can be addressed through smart contract code. Where StableYield relies on external parties such as a fund administrator, custodian, compliance provider or settlement operator, the production operating model can also rest on real world legal agreements.

Those agreements can set out the responsibilities of each party, the expected standard of care, timing and evidence requirements, and the consequences of providing incorrect information or failing to perform. This changes the nature of the reliance: even if the protocol cannot independently verify every entry in a custodian’s books, the service provider can be contractually accountable for the accuracy of its reports and subject to audit rights and agreed remedies.

The StableYield trust model therefore combines the technical controls enforced by the protocol with the legal and operational framework that surrounds the parties providing critical real world services.

What moving the workflow on-chain changes

Moving these controls on-chain does not guarantee that every participant will behave correctly. It changes the way their authority is exercised.

Actions can be limited to specific roles, required to follow a defined order, and recorded in a form that investors, operators and auditors can observe. Participants no longer need to rely solely on one another’s private records to determine the status of a request.

Missing or inconsistent information can also stop the settlement process before ownership or payment is finalized. This reduces the risk of proceeding on incomplete evidence, although it does not remove the underlying operational or counterparty risk.

Trust is restricted, not eliminated.

StableYield can restrict who is permitted to provide an input, what that input can affect, and when it can be used. It cannot independently guarantee that every real world statement is accurate or that every external party will remain available.

The remaining question is how the protocol protects these roles, investor assets and settlement processes from unauthorized actions, operational failures and errors. That is the subject of the security and governance protections that follow.

Security and operational protections

Security for a real world asset protocol cannot be treated solely as a smart contract problem. The contracts may operate exactly as intended while an external administrator supplies an incorrect NAV, a custodian fails to complete settlement, or an authorized signing key is compromised.

StableYield therefore relies on several layers of protection. The protocol restricts what can happen on-chain, the governance and operating model controls who is authorized to operate it, and legal agreements and insurance can provide additional protection where the protocol relies on external service providers.

None of these protections removes risk completely. The objective is to prevent a single error or unauthorized action from silently progressing through the system and becoming a finalized investor loss.

Current implementation status

StableYield’s MVP implements and tests the core on-chain workflow, including asynchronous request processing, role-based controls, eligibility enforcement, settlement evidence, protected accounting and emergency controls.

The current demonstration uses simulated assets and simulated oracle/reporting sources. It does not represent that a live fund administrator, custodian, compliance provider or stablecoin issuer has already been integrated with the protocol.

Production use will be partner-dependent. Integrations will need to reflect the approved processes of the selected fund manager and service providers. A production deployment would also require appropriate governance and key management, independent security review, operational monitoring, incident-response procedures, and the legal and insurance arrangements that apply to the final operating model.

On-chain controls and separation of responsibilities

Responsibility for different parts of the workflow such as eligibility, valuation information, settlement evidence, ordinary operations and emergency actions, is deliberately separated. Each role is intended to hold only the authority required for its function.

This separation is effective only if it is reflected in the actual operating model. Assigning multiple critical roles to the same person, organization or key reduces the practical protection. Changes in authority should therefore be controlled and recorded so they can be monitored.

The protocol also maintains accounting controls that prevent a request from being finalized unless the necessary on-chain assets and external evidence are present.

Report validation and circuit breakers

External information must come from sources authorized for the relevant purpose. Before that information can affect settlement, basic checks are applied.

If required information is missing, stale or inconsistent, the affected process is stopped. The protocol does not silently fall back to older data or proceed on incomplete evidence. Resolution requires corrected information or an authorized review.

A stopped settlement cycle is a protection.

A circuit breaker may delay a subscription or redemption, but completing settlement with inconsistent valuation or custody information would create a more serious risk. StableYield preserves the request and requires correction or authorized review rather than forcing the transaction through.

Pausing, recovery and governance

Authorized parties can pause affected activity if a protocol level incident is detected. The appropriate recovery path depends on how far the affected requests have progressed and whether any external transaction has already been initiated.

Pausing is only one element of incident response. The operating model must also define who investigates, how compromised authority is removed, and what review is required before normal operations resume.

Some contracts are designed to be upgradeable so that defects can be corrected and the protocol can adapt to regulatory or operational change. Upgradability introduces a governance dependency; material changes should therefore require appropriate authorization and review.

Testing, independent review and monitoring

StableYield’s development process includes unit, fuzz and invariant testing covering the investor workflow, settlement accounting, access controls and failure recovery. Automated testing does not prove that the protocol is free from defects.

Before a production deployment, the contracts, deployment configuration and operational assumptions should be independently reviewed by one or more experienced security auditors. Material future changes should also be assessed to determine whether further review is required.

The live system should be monitored for significant administrative actions, delayed or inconsistent external information, and interruptions to settlement. Monitoring is useful only when it is linked to a documented response process and to people who can act.

Legal and insurance layer

The on-chain controls only go so far. Critical providers still need due diligence, contracts, audit rights, and incident reporting obligations as detailed in our trust model. Insurance can add a financial layer for some losses. It is not a guarantee, and it does not fix a bad operating model.

Potential benefits of this architecture

The benefit of StableYield is not simply that fund shares can be represented on a blockchain. The more important benefit is that the protocol can provide a common operating layer between investors, fund managers, administrators, custodians, compliance providers and stablecoin settlement rails.

The architecture has been designed to work with the way regulated investment products operate today, while retaining the ability to accommodate a future in which more of the underlying assets, custody and settlement processes move on-chain.

Supporting existing regulated workflows

StableYield does not assume that securities regulation, fund administration, banking or custody will be redesigned around blockchain technology.

The protocol can accept investor instructions on-chain while still respecting the fund’s existing eligibility rules, dealing cut-offs, NAV process, custody arrangements and settlement timetable. A tokenized product must continue to operate within the legal and regulatory framework that applies to the underlying investment; the design supports that framework rather than treating tokenization as a way around it.

The specific fund structure, distribution model and regulatory requirements will of course need to be established with the relevant partners and legal advisers. The protocol supplies the controls and workflow through which those requirements can be enforced.

A modular approach to external data

A deliberate architectural choice is to separate the core vault and settlement logic from the systems that supply external information.

This allows an approved compliance, valuation, custody or reporting service to continue using its own internal processes while delivering the result the protocol needs. As service providers, regulations or operating requirements change, the integration points can evolve without necessarily redesigning the core investor lifecycle.

Attestations and oracles are not the same thing.

An attestation is the statement being provided. For example, that a NAV was approved or that assets were received by a custodian. An oracle or verification service is the mechanism used to retrieve, authenticate and publish that statement on-chain. StableYield standardizes the report consumed by the protocol whilst allowing the method used to produce it to change.

Modularity does not mean components can be swapped without review. Any new integration still requires technical assessment, testing and the appropriate governance approval. The advantage is that partner-specific details can change without replacing the underlying request and settlement lifecycle.

That also means partners, for different funds, do not need identical internal systems. Policy and integration details can change in the component that owns them, and the core request and settlement lifecycle does not have to be rewritten every time.

More consistent operating controls

Traditional fund operations often involve the same subscription or redemption being recorded in multiple places - investor portals, transfer-agent systems, administrator records, custodian systems and internal spreadsheets.

A shared on-chain record of the investor instruction and its status can reduce reliance on private, disconnected records. The protocol can also enforce that certain conditions are met before a request is allowed to advance. This may lower the risk of inconsistent data or out of sequence processing and gives auditors a permanent record of the on-chain actions taken by authorized parties.

Any efficiency gain will depend on how thoroughly the protocol is integrated with the administrator, custodian and settlement rails. Simply placing a record on-chain without changing the surrounding processes produces more limited benefit.

Continuous access without pretending settlement is instant

Investors can submit instructions without being limited to the operating hours of a traditional portal. Requests can be collected continuously and assigned to the appropriate business-day settlement cycle.

The fund can still maintain its approved NAV process, dealing cutoffs and liquidity controls. The protocol does not need to offer immediate liquidity or finalize ownership before pricing and settlement evidence are available. Investors, meanwhile, gain clearer visibility into the status of a request while it is being processed.

In some structures, coordinated cycles may also mean fewer external cash and asset movements. The same lifecycle can support more than one approved product later, each with its own legal wrapper and service providers.

Potential rather than guaranteed benefits

None of these advantages are automatic consequences of using a blockchain.

Reduced reconciliation depends on real integration with the fund’s books and service providers. Faster or more continuous processing depends on the availability of the administrator, custodian and settlement rails. Broader access depends on securities law, distribution arrangements and eligibility rules. Future on-chain custody depends on legal and institutional acceptance of tokenized securities.

StableYield provides an architecture through which these benefits can potentially be realized while still recognizing the legal, operational and trust requirements of a real world investment product.

The central benefit is therefore flexibility. The design can support the current model with investor ownership and workflow controls on-chain, underlying assets still administered and held externally, all while leaving a practical path open toward a future in which more of the investment and settlement process occurs directly on-chain.

Demo: following one investment lifecycle

The accompanying short demonstration follows an investor from eligibility and submission of a subscription through the pending settlement period to the receipt of vault shares and shows the information available to the investor and fund manager while each request is being processed.

The demonstration uses simulated assets and reporting sources. Its purpose is to show how the parts of the workflow connect; it is not presented as a production fund or a completed integration with external service providers.

Partnership invitation

StableYield is being developed as infrastructure connecting programmable vault ownership with the compliance, valuation, custody and settlement processes required by real world investment products.

We are interested in working with asset managers and issuers, fund administrators, custodians, compliance and attestation providers, stablecoin issuers and distribution partners to validate these workflows and define the requirements for a production pilot.