DeFi reshaped financial infrastructure, but it's still bad at displaying operational risk. APY and TVL are easy to surface and easy to compare, but the headline numbers tell you almost nothing about the risk underneath them: How much risk is being taken to earn that yield? Who controls the protocol, and how are decisions made? Where are the funds actually held, and who can move them? What happens if one key person leaves or acts badly? What is a curator allowed to do with deposits without asking anyone? These things are harder to see, and they rarely get the same scrutiny. That's the gap open, independent risk rating frameworks like @Xerberus are built to close. Xerberus rates each risk layer separately, assets, protocols, pools (vaults), and organisations, so risk doesn't get buried by collapsing everything into one score. And because Xerberus is paid by investors rather than the protocols it rates, a good grade isn't something an issuer can buy. As of June 19th, Avantgarde is rated 91% on the organisational layer, top 7 of ~50 rated organisations. Our Morpho USDC vaults score 89% on the pool layer, 6th of ~80 rated pools. A strong score here isn't a reward for size or headline yield, it reflects how risk is actually managed across 300+ factors. Where a factor has caused losses before, that history is built into the score so others can avoid the same mistake. That's the kind of signal this industry needs more of. The framework is open, so anyone can check the ratings themselves, no black box, no scores that mean nothing on their own. We'd rather be rated by someone who doesn't answer to us than just tell you we're careful. See the scorecards yourself: Organisation Avantgarde USDC Conservative
Avantgarde Finance curated stablecoin vaults