Sentora Vault provides superior risk-adjusted returns by lending against top-tier collaterals from Bitcoin wrappers to staked ETH and yield-bearing stablecoin derivatives with strong risk management.
Severe liquidity risk on this vault, against an overall band of moderate.
The contract holds 429,209,877.66 RLUSD, read from the chain by its token. At the price we publish that is $429.17M, against the $429.18M shown above.
Over 112 daily readings it has ranged from 2.07% to 7.88%, averaging 2.83%. The tile above shows today’s quote alone.
The published ratio divides the realised rate by the rate this vault quotes TODAY.
Over 112 of the 243 days the return covers we hold its own quotes, it advertised between 2.07% and 7.88%, averaging 2.83%, and today's quote is near the BOTTOM of that range, so the published ratio flatters the delivery. Against the average it quoted, the realised rate is 114.48% 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. 45 of those days we recorded ourselves and 67 come from the venue's own published history, which is the same fact read later rather than a different one.
We derive 18.9% of this vault as withdrawable and ITS OWN accounting says 5.0%. Ours is the more generous of the two, and it is derived from idle cash plus what the markets it lends into have free, where theirs is the vault's own figure. Read the lower one before planning an exit.
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 ring marks the largest single withdrawal in the last 30 days, $19.99M.
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.
Observed configuration: no liquidity adapter is set on this vault, so an ordinary withdrawal pays only from the vault's idle balance. At block 26329442 the vault's idle balance was 5.0% of its assets, a ratio of the two in the token's own units. Applied to the capital figure in this report that would be about $21,430,375; that is an illustration, not an idle balance observed at that size. Money in its one adapter is subject to a penalty of 0.01% on a forced deallocation. Venue figure: $102,444,670 withdrawable, a market-liquidity figure, read at a different time from the block above. It may include money an ordinary withdrawal cannot reach; whether a forced deallocation is needed for a given amount, or works, was not established. Calculated, not executed. Alternative routes, in general: a forced deallocation (anyone may call it) moves assets from an adapter back to the idle balance, and needs free liquidity in the market behind that adapter; where there is none, a potential route is an in-kind exit, in which the depositor first supplies to that market themselves (with their own funds or a flash loan) in the same transaction, then forces the deallocation and withdraws, and ends up holding a supply position in that market, in the vault's asset, which can be withdrawn only when that market has free liquidity, rather than the asset itself. Executed on this vault: neither. Both are potential routes; that they work for this vault's adapters, and what each adapter's own code allows, is not verified.
Simulated at block 26329261 (2026-11-02 19:43 UTC), by eth_call, which runs the vault's own withdraw and sends nothing, on behalf of its largest depositor, whose position was worth $185,393,504: $1,000,000 ($1M) would have gone through; $40,341,231 (a tenth of the vault), $72,718,472 (the venue's withdrawable figure as read 2026-11-02 18:43 UTC, before this simulation), $185,208,110 (the holder's position, less 0.1% for rounding) would have reverted (TransferReverted: the vault could not transfer that much of its asset, which on a vault paying from idle means past its idle balance). Searched at the same block by halving the interval between $1,000,000 (passed) and $40,341,231 (failed) 6 times: the threshold lies between $20,055,909 (passed) and $20,670,616 (failed), for this holder at this block; the exact maximum was not established. One holder at one block, before anybody else takes the same liquidity, and only up to what that holder owns; it says nothing about a later block.
Not lent counts money supplied to markets and not borrowed and money in no market we read alike; the capital account above splits the two for the latest reading. Not lent is not what could be withdrawn, which is read separately.
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, 45 recorded by us since 2026-09-19 and 67 from the venue’s own published history.
$10.0k would be $10.1k , a gain of $71.85, 0.7% over 89 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? | 6 collaterals read, $394.56M supplied, across 10 marketsRead from the vault’s own holdings. Concentration and the assets themselves are below. Its largest single market holds 100% of what anybody has supplied there. | Measured | |
| How much could leave now? | $102.44MWhat the contract will pay out now, read from it. Not the same as what is idle. | Measured | |
| Who runs it, and what else have they run? | SentoraA named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed. | Measured | |
Owner, curator and guardian are different parties, so no single one of them can act alone.
180 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. 2,674 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.
Timing indicates autonomous management, confidence 100%.
Timing only. This says nothing about whether the strategy is any good, a losing bot is still a bot.
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.
The band weighs them against everything else, which is why it can read better without being in conflict.
Evidence · Not scored · 4 of 5 components read (76% 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 | Severeworse than the band | Yes | exit |
| Depositor concentration | Low | Yes | concentration |
| Operatinglimited scope: continuity of the observed record; not a review of operations | Low | Yes | consistency |
| Controller | Moderate | No | who may move the money |
| Evidence | Not scored | No | 4 of 5 components read (76% 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.
Input: 5.0% of it could be withdrawn at the last reading, on the vault's own accounting, 5.0%, which is lower than the 23.9% we derive from declared withdrawable $102,444,670 over capital $429,182,598; the lower of the two is used. The reading 0.80 is one less that share over 25%: a quarter or more free reads 0, nothing free reads 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. 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 43%, 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 0.24 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.
Coverage of the curator's timelocked functions is complete, which is not a review of everything that controls the vault. Each of the curator's 15 timelocked functions was read from the contract at block 26,329,442: its delay, and whether it has been abdicated. The 3 gates that can lock depositors out (setSendSharesGate, setReceiveAssetsGate, setReceiveSharesGate) are abdicated: the contract records each as given up, and it has no function that reverses an abdication. That holds while this code is the vault's: the address carries the contract itself (21,808 bytes) with no proxy implementation, beacon or admin slot set, so we found no way to replace it. Pointing funds somewhere new, or raising a cap, waits its delay, during which a sentinel can revoke it. Fees can change at once, within the contract's ceilings: setPerformanceFee, setManagementFee, setForceDeallocatePenalty. Allocators move funds between destinations already added, within the caps, at once, as the contract intends; who they are was not checked. The owner names the curator and the sentinels, at once; this contract gives it no function that moves funds or sets a gate, a cap or a fee itself, and a new curator's changes wait the same delays. ASPERN rule, since 2026-10-31: a delay of a day or more on that change and a veto at another address read moderate rather than high. The level would read high if any of these could be used without its delay: setSendSharesGate, setReceiveAssetsGate, setReceiveSharesGate, addAdapter, increaseAbsoluteCap, increaseRelativeCap, setAdapterRegistry, the gates that can lock depositors out and the ways to add a destination or raise a cap. Powers that act at once here do not move it: fees (setPerformanceFee, setManagementFee, setForceDeallocatePenalty), because the contract caps them; naming allocators (setIsAllocator), because an allocator moves funds only among destinations already added and within the caps. The ways out of an allocation, as read from this vault, are set out under how you get out; whether they work for each adapter was not verified. It is a rule of ours, not a change in the vault. Not known: whether different addresses are controlled by different people, who the allocators are, and what each adapter's own code allows. This is not part of the overall band.
By weight, 62.5 of the 82.5 points that apply were read, which is 76% 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.
Figures computed from the share price read from the vault contract as we went: 2026-03-30 to 2026-11-02, 243 observations. 30-day window from 2026-10-03, 90-day window from 2026-08-04. Readings from Morpho’s own daily record of the vault, reconstructed afterwards (1,014) and the share price read from the contract at past blocks, reconstructed afterwards (52) exist and are not mixed in: one series, one source.
The three after Held add to it. Not verified is in no market we read: it may be cash or another allocation and is not counted as cash. The venue’s withdrawable figure overlaps them and is not added to them.
$102,277,128 of this vault's $429,182,598 is not observed as lent, which does not exceed what the vault holds; that is a check that one figure does not contradict the other, not a reconciliation of the two. The two figures were read 17 minutes apart, not together, which is enough on its own to move a figure this size.
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.
| What does it depend on? |
| Morpho Vaults V2 on EthereumThe 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? | multisig · 72h vault timelock · sentinelsowner, curator and at least one sentinel are at different addresses; common control has not been ruled out | Measured |
| How much of the above was measured? | 0 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 2026-09-19 and nothing we record has moved in that window.
That is not the same as a vault that has never changed hands: anything before 2026-09-19 predates this platform holding control state at all, and we do not reconstruct it from history.
Attributed collateral only.
A vault accepting many collaterals at once reports less here than it holds, so this is what we can attribute rather than everything it is lent against.
Band width is dollars on one scale. Attributed supply only: a vault in many markets at once reports less here than it holds.
10 markets read, $394.56M attributed. 1 of them has nothing left unlent. 3 of them have been liquidated since we began reading, and none of those left debt unrecovered. The market by market rows, and this vault’s share of each, are part of the crowding data.