💡 Not every dollar in a portfolio needs to play the same role. If I were organizing a portfolio, I wouldn't evaluate every position using one question: "How much can this earn?" I'd also ask what job that capital is supposed to do. Money allocated for a near-term opportunity has a different purpose from capital intended to generate income over a longer horizon. Treating both the same can lead to decisions that look attractive on paper but don't fit the actual objective. This is why I'm interested in the direction of GRVT Earn. Rather than presenting yield as one universal number, @grvt_io planned fixed-income offering includes different strategies with different target returns and underlying exposures. For example: 🏦 Balanced Bundle: targets approximately 4.5% APY, with exposure described as including AAA-rated collateralized loan obligations. 📈 Opportunistic Bundle: targets approximately 11% APY, with an example involving card receivables settled through payment networks such as Visa and Mastercard. These targets aren't guaranteed returns, and the higher figure shouldn't automatically be interpreted as the better choice. Underlying exposures, credit risk, liquidity, and the structure of each strategy all matter. To me, the useful question isn't simply which product offers the biggest percentage. It's whether the strategy fits the purpose of the capital being allocated. Tokenization can make these opportunities more accessible, but accessibility doesn't remove the need to understand what sits underneath the yield. Let's compare how we think about this: If you had to choose between a strategy targeting 4.5% APY and one targeting 11% APY, what would you investigate first before deciding? Would it be the underlying assets, the liquidity terms, the manager's track record, or something else? Share your first priority and why.