Bhanu

Live in 2 hours : @EricWaisanen, Chief Strategy Officer @alphagrowth1 & Xerberus co-founder @snj_peters dive into: - regulation - what it takes to deploy treasury capital safely. Bring your questions & see you there! 🗓8PM UK / 3PM EST

Livestream: Xerberus x @alphagrowth1 Tomorrow at 3pm EST / 8pm UK @EricWaisanen, Chief Strategy Officer at AlphaGrowth, joins Xerberus co-founder @snj_peters to talk vault risk, regulation, and what it takes to deploy treasury capital safely. For those new to them: AlphaGrowth is the official growth team of Compound DAO. They take protocols and ecosystems from idle treasuries to deployed capital: incentive programs, lending markets, vault strategies. Compound, Arbitrum, Base and Near are on the client list. That work puts them on the sharp end of the questions we care about. When you route serious capital into vaults, whose job is it to know what can break, and what will regulators expect you to have checked? Drop your questions below, and see you there.

JPMorgan, Citi, BofA and Wells Fargo are building shared tokenized-deposit rails and Wall Street is moving onto programmable money. But do they know how these rails look under pressure ? in DeFi today, one contract sets the borrow rate for 1,524 lending markets. A failure there has a structural path to 1 in 6 of every contract in the system. We mapped the load-bearing walls. ↓

Xerberus Ratings creates fingerprints of vaults, protocols, and organisations. Our system is open, and everyone can use our MCP to correct entries and use the data for your work platform, or you can reach out to us to author your own parameters to the system. Not all data points are individually correct (we invite you to contribute), but the signal keeps having its moment. The system gets better as more it is being used! If you have questions, DM us!

A strong framing from @R2D2zen, and the closing line is one we can measure: “DeFi is splitting at the surface, but becoming more connected underneath.” In our 24 June snapshot of Ethereum mainnet, 96% of 14,607 building blocks belonged to a single connected network. Just 146 of them, the top 1%, carried 55% of all dependencies. Consumer apps and institutional rails may serve different users, but underneath they often rely on the same small group of critical hubs. That changes how risk should be understood. As interfaces become better at hiding the infrastructure, analysing risk becomes less about what the product looks like and more about the dependency map beneath it. Consumer or institutional, every position inherits the network it depends on. We explored that network in a recent series, starting with what a DeFi dependency graph actually is: x.com/xerberus/status/207278…

Following Commissioner Peirce’s statement on crypto vaults, the debate has focused on whether vault activity should be viewed as regulated asset management. Tesseract’s CEO argues that “this is asset management, it is a regulated activity,” while Gauntlet’s Chief Business Officer has challenged broader claims of that nature. Both perspectives raise important points. Vaults can involve meaningful operator discretion, but the extent of that discretion varies significantly between structures. Rather than taking a position, we mapped 100 rated vaults against the spectrum outlined by Commissioner Peirce, from greater operator discretion to more programmatic allocation. Using public evidence and assessing each vault gate by gate: - 17 score 80 or higher on our discretion-bounded index, indicating that allocation is heavily constrained by rules the operator cannot override. - 14 score below 40, indicating a greater reliance on operator discretion. - The remaining 69 fall between those points, where the specific controls and permissions matter more than any single label. The index is descriptive, not a legal opinion, and the 100 vaults represent a sample of the wider market. The full map and underlying tables are below. Every placement is sourced and can be disputed through our platform.

Last night we joined @TokenBrice on a Space about the Curve DAO's call for risk provider proposals. A recap for those who missed it. Curve's call is split into two scopes. @PharosWatch is bidding on Scope 1, the crvUSD mint markets and peg keepers, which sits squarely in their stablecoin rating expertise. Xerberus is bidding on Scope 2, the @llamalend markets, plus a system-wide simulation layer. Two independent proposals, but a shared philosophy: show the work before asking for anything, and take the budget mostly in locked CRV. The theme that kept coming back: relying on a single risk provider was a structural weakness. Multiple teams per scope means assessments get challenged, debated, and sharpened. A DAO is better served by providers who disagree in public than by one team nobody audits. What Xerberus brings to Scope 2: to risk-rate positions anywhere in DeFi we had to rebuild LlamaLend and crvUSD market math inside our systemic model. That work is done. For the DAO it translates to live market monitoring, simulating parameter changes before they go to a vote, and alerts when stress outside Curve is about to travel into Curve markets. Why that matters? : As an example, a wallet spread across three positions on three different protocols looked diversified, until dependency mapping showed nearly all of it resolved to a single underlying protocol. That is systemic risk, and it stays invisible until you map the whole graph. One more point worth highlighting : Ratings paid for by the rated party is the model that broke in 2008. Risk assessment for DAOs only works when the party paying is the one that needs the answer to be true. Both proposals are live on the @CurveFinance governance forum. Read them, question them, and bring the hard questions.

We rebuilt Curve’s full Llamalend and crvUSD perimeter from on-chain data. One of the 4 things it surfaced: the DAO’s largest single exposure, ~$265M, isn’t on any monitoring surface today. Join our stream starting in 20min to learn more about this and the full proposal.

We mapped 14,607 building blocks on Ethereum to show how a few enormous hubs carry almost everything, and the other 99% hang off them. Key info from Part 2 of The Hidden Shape of DeFi: - Dependency inequality scores 0.88 on the Gini scale; the most unequal countries on Earth top out near 0.63 in income. - 146 building blocks, 1% of the network, carry 55% of all dependencies. - The #2 hub is a single Morpho interest-rate contract: 1,529 things depend on it. Pendle leads at 1,845. Nobody designed this. Capital routes toward the most liquid, most battle-tested points, and the rich get richer. That shape is natural, efficient, and shrugs off random failure without blinking. In Part 3 we'll measure the one failure it isn't built for, but before that... Full Part 2 below.

We mapped the hidden shape of DeFi. Underneath every deposit screen there is wiring: - wrappers on assets - oracles feeding markets - vaults routing capital - rate models setting the terms… We traced that wiring across Ethereum from on-chain data and drew the whole map: 12,230 contracts, joined by 19,919 links. The map has a shape, and it took us by surprise more than once. Parts of it are reassuring. Parts of it are uncomfortable. None of it is visible to the average user. We're publishing what we found as a six-part series. One idea per part, one chart per idea. Below is Part 0, the introduction explaining: what a dependency is, how to read the graph, the eight kinds of link we track. Ten minutes there and every chart in the series reads on sight. One Ethereum snapshot, 2026-06-22, covering the ~57 protocols we track. (Xerberus: systemic risk in DeFi, from on-chain data.)