A better yield means very little if accessing a trading opportunity forces you to give it up. This is why I find GRVT’s planned Yield as Margin feature worth examining. Consider a simple example. You have $1,000 allocated to an eligible yield generating investment. You also want to keep capital available for a trading opportunity. In a fragmented setup, you might need separate balances. Your investment earns a return, while the money reserved for trading may earn less or nothing. Moving capital between the two can mean selling an investment, waiting for funds to settle or losing some of the return you wanted in the first place. Yield as Margin is designed to address that trade off. @grvt_io plans to let eligible balances held in its new Earn product serve as margin for trading positions while continuing to accrue yield. In plain English, the same eligible capital could earn a return and help support a trade, instead of having to choose between those two uses. That is capital efficiency. But there is an important distinction here. Grvt Earn and Yield as Margin are not the same feature. Grvt Earn is the investment product designed to provide access to tokenized fixed income opportunities, with target yields of up to 11% APY on eligible assets. Yield as Margin is the planned mechanism that would allow eligible Earn balances to support trading positions while continuing to earn. One provides the yield opportunity. The other is designed to make that capital usable for trading too. GRVT has announced Yield as Margin for November 2026. Its availability and conditions should be checked against the actual product terms at launch. There is another part of this proposition that matters to me: asset control. GRVT documents a self custodial model in which funds are held in onchain smart contracts and withdrawals require a signature from the user’s key. That is a meaningful distinction from simply depositing funds with a platform and relying entirely on its promise to return them. But self custody is not the same as zero risk. Smart contracts can have vulnerabilities. Underlying investments can lose value or generate less yield than expected. Trading positions can also lose money, and leveraged positions introduce liquidation risk. So I would not judge this model by the APY alone. I would want to understand which assets qualify, where the yield comes from, what redemption looks like, how margin requirements work and what happens to an Earn position when a trade moves against me. I would also check the actual product terms rather than assume that every balance remains equally accessible under every market condition. My view is simple: capital efficiency is valuable when it gives your money more than one useful job without hiding the risks attached to either job. The opportunity is compelling. The mechanics, conditions and risks are what determine whether it is useful in practice.