Standards comparison
ERC-4626 — synchronous vaults
ERC-4626 established a widely adopted vault interface for DeFi. It handles atomic deposit-and-share operations in a single transaction. Limitations:- Synchronous only — no mechanism for cooldown periods, withdrawal queues, or multi-step flows
- No operation tracking — once a transaction completes, there is no lifecycle to observe
- Works well for simple DeFi protocols (Aave, Compound) but cannot represent assets with settlement delays
ERC-7540 — asynchronous extension
ERC-7540 extended ERC-4626 with asynchronous deposit and redeem requests. The specification itself acknowledges several limitations:- No cancellation flow — users cannot revoke a pending request once initiated
- No native timestamping — ambiguity around how long a request can remain pending and when it should expire
- No defined state transition model — no clear, enforceable path from “pending” to “claimable”
- Single logical action — abstracts a two-step process into one, which breaks down for complex strategies
- All-or-nothing — vaults must be either fully synchronous or fully asynchronous, with no support for partial fills, staggered liquidity, or mixed execution paths
STEAM — stateful lifecycle
STEAM provides a 7-state lifecycle with explicit, enforceable transitions:- Every operation (Query) has a unique ID with full lifecycle tracking
- Supports both sync and async in the same architecture — a Strategy can hold sync and async yield sources (Aave and Ethena) simultaneously
- Built-in error recovery (RECOVERING state) — assets can be reclaimed without impacting other operations
- Explicit rejection — operations can be denied with assets returned via the REJECTED state
- Per-operation isolation — a failure in one Query does not affect others
Capability comparison
| Capability | ERC-4626 | ERC-7540 | STEAM (Railnet) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sync operations | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Async operations | No | Yes | Yes |
| Mixed sync + async | N/A | No (vault-level choice) | Yes (per-Vehicle) |
| Operation lifecycle | None | Pending / Claimable | 7-state machine |
| Concurrent operations | N/A | Limited | Yes (unique Query IDs) |
| Cancellation / rejection | No | No | Yes (REJECTED state) |
| Error recovery | No | No | Yes (RECOVERING state) |
| Multi-source composition | No | No | Yes (Multi-Vehicle) |
| Distribution layer | No | No | Yes (Conduits) |
| Real-time NAV | External | External | Contract-native |
| Access control | External | External | Built-in (EAC) |
| Fee management | External | External | Built-in (Fee Manager) |
Approach comparison
Single-protocol vault approaches
Some vault platforms are designed around a single protocol or ecosystem.Morpho Vaults
Morpho Vaults
Morpho Vaults are ERC-4626 based and built primarily for Morpho Markets. Asset managers (“curators”) construct strategies within the Morpho ecosystem.Morpho explicitly does not build adapters for competing protocols (Aave, Euler, etc.). This is a deliberate design choice rooted in avoiding dependency on upgradeable external protocols. Their focus is on native tokenized products built directly on the Morpho stack.Railnet takes a different approach: it wraps any yield source — including Morpho — through a common standard. Dependency risk is distributed across many protocols rather than concentrated in one, and asset managers can rebalance liquidity across Vehicles if an underlying protocol changes.
Lagoon (ERC-7540 vaults)
Lagoon (ERC-7540 vaults)
Lagoon implements ERC-7540 without a native request queuing system. Key constraints:
- A vault is configured as either fully synchronous or fully asynchronous — no hybrid model
- Users must redeem their entire position — partial withdrawals are not supported
- Users cannot maintain multiple pending redemption requests concurrently
- Management logic is handled off-chain rather than through on-chain state transitions
Veda (Boring Vaults)
Veda (Boring Vaults)
Veda’s BoringVault is a minimalist vault core that delegates strategy execution, pricing, and access control to specialized modules. Curators submit Merkle-tree-verified rebalance messages to deploy capital across DeFi protocols. Key constraints from an asset manager’s perspective:
- One vault per partner — distributing the same strategy to multiple platforms requires deploying a separate BoringVault for each, with its own fee configuration, access control, and accounting
- Operational overhead scales linearly — rebalancing, rate updates, and Merkle tree management must be repeated across every vault instance
- No native distribution layer — there is no built-in mechanism to share a single strategy across multiple channels with per-partner customization
Railnet’s approach
Railnet is not competing with individual protocols or single-asset vaults. It operates at a different layer of the stack:- Protocol-agnostic — wraps any yield source (DeFi or real-world asset) through the STEAM standard
- Multi-source by design — a single Strategy composes multiple yield sources across different protocols and asset types
- On-chain operations — deposit, redemption, rebalancing, fee collection, and queue management all happen on-chain through standardized interfaces
- Connective infrastructure — connects protocols, asset managers, and platforms into a unified network rather than competing with any one of them
When to use what
ERC-4626
Simple, single-protocol synchronous vaults. Wrapping an Aave market or Compound pool where deposits and withdrawals complete atomically.
ERC-7540
Single async vault when you need basic async deposit/redeem without multi-source composition or mixed execution modes.
STEAM (Railnet)
Multi-protocol strategies, mixed sync/async operations, real-world assets with off-chain timing, or institutional requirements (compliance, risk analytics, auditable accounting).