● Base return ~2.7% a year · capital never locked up
An automated system runs continuously: 80% of capital produces a base return (~2.7% a year), the other 20% is earmarked for incremental return, spread across several protocols with a 1–5% cap on each. Today the fund sits entirely in the base return: the incremental sleeve switches on when size makes it worthwhile. A single deposit; capital stays available and redeemable — only the active tranche is at risk, never the capital.
The flow of capital
80% of capital produces a recurring base return. The other 20% is dynamically allocated across several protocols to generate incremental return, with limited exposure to each — a sleeve that is not active yet, because below a certain size its fixed costs exceed what it would earn; the proceeds are reinvested. Automatic, continuous rebalancing.
Three structural properties
Not a bet, but a structure with three properties that reinforce one another.
The Core generates ~2.7% a year and stays liquid and redeemable at all times. The comparison that matters is not a checking account: it is the short-dated government bill, today higher. The Core is not built to beat it, but to stay liquid and to fund the engines above it.
No concentration on a single protocol — from 1% to 5% based on solidity. A platform default hits a fraction, not the portfolio.
No lock-ups, no freezes. Capital is redeemable at any time, without authorizations.
The comparison, unfiltered
The Core has the solidity and liquidity of the safe havens where money is parked, and the base return tracks today's real rates — which right now leave it below the short-dated government bill. The design calls for return engines built on top of the Core, never exposing the capital; they are not switched on yet.
The percentages are current rates, read from the protocols, not projections. The extra return the design calls for — gold, S&P and airdrops financed by the interest and never by the capital — is not running today: below a certain size its fixed costs exceed what it would earn. Once active it may add return, or nothing: it is not guaranteed.
A concrete example
No forecast of the future. Only the base return, with protected capital, compounding over time.
€10,000 initial. The gap widens every year: it's capital productively allocated. The shaded band is the extra return — potential, not guaranteed. Curve at the representative backtest rate (~3.5%); today the Core earns ~2.7% live (top of page).
The extra return, in detail
Every week the coupon from the Core — never the capital — buys a share of tokenized gold and S&P 500. The capital stays lent out and is never liquidated: only the interest already earned is at risk. Extra return financed by interest, not by capital.
The capital stays in liquid lending. Only interest already collected buys gold and S&P: in the worst case, part of the accrued interest is eroded, never the capital itself.
Interest after interest, the coupon becomes a sizeable position: over ~3 years of real history it reached ~21% of capital — a zero-cost gain, financed by yield.
In the 2020 S&P crash (−34%) a fixed 20% exposure would have cost −6.8% of the fund. Buying only with the coupon, only the accumulated position is at risk: in the backtest, never beyond −2.2%.
Read this — transparency on the numbers
A favorable period: over these 2.8 years gold returned +118% and the S&P +74%, so the CAGRs are overstated. Average lending rates (~5.4%) sat ~2pp above current (~3.4%): under today's conditions, read the absolutes ~2pp lower. The S&P is price-only (dividends ~1.5%/yr excluded, for prudence); tokenized-asset tracking and redemption risks are not modeled. Not a promise: the extra return may add a few points or nothing. The only guaranteed advantage is structural — the capital is never at risk.
The legitimate objection
That's not how it works. That tranche isn't a single bet: it's fragmented across many protocols, stays productive, and flows back. Here's why.
Fragmented into many positions, each on a different protocol. Written rule: the cap per protocol ranges from 1% to 5%, based on solidity.
If a protocol fails, only that position is lost. The others stay operational.
For the entire active tranche to be lost at once, every protocol would have to fail on the same day. They're independent, monitored individually, and at the first anomaly we exit. The realistic worst case is a couple of points.
Under watch, today
Only protocols we can operate on without price exposure, and that haven't yet distributed their incentive. At the top, those with distribution still pending.
| Protocol | Status | Priority |
|---|
The rules, written down first
The real risk — a protocol's insolvency — can't be eliminated. It's contained, with rules set in advance, not under pressure.
From 1% to 5% per protocol, based on size and maturity. A default of one hits a fraction, never a significant share.
Larger protocols rarely fail; smaller ones get a tighter cap. Exposure follows solidity.
Even while awaiting an allocation, capital earns as much as the Core. It never sits idle or needlessly exposed.
At the first sign of friction on withdrawals, that position is closed first.
The right questions
10% of gains only, exclusively above the all-time high (high-water mark). Nothing in the absence of return, and no fixed fee on the capital. Example: €10,000 that in an ordinary year becomes €10,350 → €35 in fees, €10,315 to the investor. If the year closes flat or down, the fee is nil.
Yes. The bulk is in liquid lending, redeemable immediately — no lock-ups, no freezes.
No. No return is guaranteed. The base return is solid (~3.5% from backtests on real historical data), but it's not a promise; the extra return (gold, S&P, airdrops) can add. Or nothing.
The insolvency of a protocol in the active tranche. It's a contained risk — from 1% to 5% per protocol, with an exit at the first sign — not eliminated.
Personal capital, not a public offering: any entry happens only on a private basis and under dedicated agreements.