No overall band is published: the assessment is withheld.
Every daily reading we hold.
The result and whether it holds for a current decision, cash against unplaced capital, the largest holder against what could leave, what would change the conclusion, the sanctions screening and the key unknowns: the same readings the API and the PDF carry.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign in1 changes across the 6 daily reports we stored: the assessment, each risk, the withdrawable share, control roles and the tested withdrawal.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign inThe contract holds 87,606,150.41 AVUSD, read from the chain by its token. At the price we publish that is $87.40M, against the $87.40M shown above.
Over 45 daily readings it has ranged from 0.00% to 7.99%, averaging 7.55%. The tile above shows the base rate as the venue last quoted it, alone.
The published ratio divides the realised rate by the base rate this vault quoted when the comparison was last computed (10 November 2026, 00:00 UTC).
Over 45 of the 406 days the return covers we hold its own quotes, it advertised between 0.00% and 7.99%, averaging 7.55%, and that quote is near the TOP of that range, so the published ratio is built on one of this vault's better quotes. Against the average it quoted, the realised rate is 97.74% of it. We hold no quote for the rest of the window, so this says what the venue was advertising while we watched and not across the whole return.
Pick or type an amount to weigh it against both: what the venue says could leave now, and the largest single withdrawal anybody has made here.
The contract imposes no notice period and no request step: a redeem that succeeds settles in the transaction that asks for it, and it succeeds only if the vault holds enough to pay at that moment, which is the liquidity reading and a separate question.
There is no queue and no lock-up in the contract.
There is no exit capacity to read here, and that is the contract rather than a gap in our reading. THE CONTRACT HAS NO EXIT CAPACITY TO READ, and that is a fact about the contract rather than a gap in our reading. Asked what a holder who demonstrably holds shares could withdraw, it returned their whole holding converted, with no liquidity cap inside the answer. Asking again returns the same thing and so would any other reader: there is no figure here that measures what the vault could actually pay.
A quoted rate is one input, not a verdict.
It moves only when the strategy earns or loses; deposits do not move it.
Dashed: what the venue advertised, all recorded by us, which we began on 2026-09-25.
$10.0k would be $10.1k , a gain of $60.24, 0.6% over 30 days.
Computed from the price of one share, so another depositor arriving is never counted as this strategy’s performance. Fees the venue charges inside the share price are included; anything charged outside it is not. It says what this vault did between two dates and nothing whatever about what it will do next.
Everything above is reconstructed from public data. A declaration is free, signed from this vault’s own key, and cannot be edited afterwards.Note 28
Six questions, and what we hold for each.
| Source mark | Question | What we hold | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does it hold or lend into? | SAVUSDThe venue names a deposit asset. What the vault actually holds behind it has not been read. | Declared | |
| How much could leave now? | at least $104.74M idleOnly the unlent part is known, so this is a floor: at least this much can leave. Idle is not withdrawable, and a queue, a cooldown or a cap can stand between them. | Inferred | |
| Who runs it, and what else have they run? | Avant avUSDA named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed. |
the owner is a single externally-owned account, not a multisig
The owner is a single key rather than a contract, so there is no multisig or timelock behind it.
30 transactions moved assets on the vault’s own account, across 1 token.
Counted as manager activity because the transaction carried neither a deposit nor a withdrawal. 227 further transfers travelled with somebody’s own money and are not counted here. A transfer is not a trade: this says the contract acted, not that it acted well.
Locked here: every depositor we read with their share of the vault, the largest single wallet, and the ledger of each deposit and withdrawal. A vault that is eighty per cent one depositor is a vault whose price can be reset by a single withdrawal, and whose headline TVL says almost nothing about whether anyone else believes in it.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign inWhat this page cannot show yet, and why.
2 dimensions read worse than the model's partial result of low, on the inputs it could read.
Evidence · Not scored · 3 of 5 components read, 1 refused (55% of the weight)
Point at a risk to read what it rests on.
| Risk | Reads | In the band | From |
|---|---|---|---|
| Marketlimited scope: past share-price falls, markets shared with other vaults and, where the vault borrows, distance to liquidation; excludes collateral and borrower credit risk | Low | Yes | drawdown |
| Liquidity | Not read | Yes | nothing fed it |
| Depositor concentration | Highworse than the band | Yes | concentration |
| Operatinglimited scope: continuity of the observed record; not a review of operations | Low | Yes | consistency |
| Controller | Highworse than the band | No | who may move the money |
| Evidence | Not scored | No | 3 of 5 risk-band components read, 1 refused (55% of the weight) |
The levels come from this vault’s own risk components and controller reading. The bars draw them; they are not a second calculation, and there is deliberately no overall figure.
Low observed risk is not zero risk. Market here is two observed readings: the worst fall in the vault's past share price and how much of its lending shares a market with other vaults we track. It does not assess the collateral, the borrowers' ability to repay, a concentration in one market (read under where the capital rests), or whether withdrawals hold under stress. The overall band weighs every component together instead, so it can read better than this and is not in conflict with it: a dimension says how bad its worst reading is, the band says what the whole weighs.
That is our coverage, not a finding.
It measures how much of the vault its largest depositor holds, not how much the vault lends into one market; that is the allocation table. Input: largest wallet holds 73%, by the address's position; addresses are not merged by who owns them, and whether the largest is a person, another vault or a custodian is not established. The reading 0.64 is that share less 25%, over 75%: a quarter or less reads 0, the whole vault 1. The overall band weighs every component together instead, so it can read better than this and is not in conflict with it: a dimension says how bad its worst reading is, the band says what the whole weighs.
Low observed risk is not zero risk. The overall band weighs every component together instead, so it can read better than this and is not in conflict with it: a dimension says how bad its worst reading is, the band says what the whole weighs.
What that party may change is set by the venue's contract; if it can redirect funds and nothing delays it, one signature is enough to do so. This is not part of the overall band: a vault reading low can read high here.
By weight, 45 of the 82.5 points that apply were read, which is 55% of the component weight the band could draw on (a different denominator: components are not equally weighted); the rest of the 100 is the weight of what does not apply. This is a statement about our coverage and carries no level of its own, because how much we could read is not a risk the vault runs.
Every deposit and withdrawal drawn over the vault's value, the buckets of money in and out, the wallets that moved it and how big a whale is here.
See what unlocksAlready a customer? Sign inFigures computed from the share price read from the vault contract as we went: 2026-09-21 to 2026-11-09, 251 observations. 30-day window from 2026-10-10. Readings from one third-party price divided by another (308) and the share price read from the contract at past blocks, reconstructed afterwards (9) exist and are not mixed in: one series, one source.
These are the same seven fields in the same order for every vault, so a high rate and a high rate nobody can withdraw from do not look alike.
| Measured |
| What does it depend on? | Avant avUSD on AvalancheThe venue and the chain are known; what the strategy routes into underneath them has not been read. | Declared |
| Who can change it, and how fast? | eoathe owner is a single externally-owned account, not a multisig | Measured |
| How much of the above was measured? | 1 of 5 not measuredCounted from the rows above rather than asserted. Every figure on this page carries when it was read and what it was read from; the gaps are listed on /reconciliation with their size. | Measured |
This is not a score and there is no letter at the end of it: the answers are different kinds of thing and compressing them into one number would hide exactly the part a reader needs. Where we have nothing, the row says so.
The mark says where an answer came from, never whether it is good: a filled circle is a reading we made, a half circle an inference from readings we hold, quotation marks what the venue or operator states, and a dashed ring means we did not read it rather than that there is nothing to read.
Nothing here is a rating, a recommendation, or a statement that this vault is safe.
These fields are empty because nobody has attested them, not because we failed to find them.
An operator who registers gets a record that provably cannot be edited after the fact, and a grade no unregistered strategy can reach.
We have watched who controls this vault since 2026-09-25 and nothing we record has moved in that window.
That is not the same as a vault that has never changed hands: anything before 2026-09-25 predates this platform holding control state at all, and we do not reconstruct it from history.