The Stake DAO USDC vault aims to optimize yields by lending USDC against selected Stake DAO LP token collaterals with a cautious risk approach or other blue chip collaterals depending on market conditions.
Severe market risk on this vault, against an overall band of moderate.
The contract holds 570,626.61 USDC, read from the chain by its token. At the price we publish that is $570.4k, against the $570.4k shown above.
Over 112 daily readings it has ranged from 4.49% to 26.99%, averaging 5.49%. 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 263 days the return covers we hold its own quotes, it advertised between 4.49% and 26.99%, averaging 5.49%, 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 108.36% 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.
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, $130.0k.
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.
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.
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 Not lent is not what could be withdrawn, which is read separately.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 $136.29, 1.4% 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. 1 of 6 is not measured for this vault.
| Source mark | Question | What we hold | Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| What does it hold or lend into? | 1 collateral read, $570.5k supplied, across 2 marketsRead from the vault’s own holdings. Concentration and the assets themselves are below. Its largest single market holds 6% of what anybody has supplied there. | Measured | |
| How much could leave now? | $570.5kWhat 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? | CrossWorlds (by Stake DAO)A named operator with a record across every vault they run, including the ones that closed. | Measured |
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.
Read over 30 days and no asset movement could be attributed to the manager. That is a reading, not an absence of one, every transfer in the window travelled with a deposit or a withdrawal.
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, 1 refused (79% 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 | Severeworse than the band | Yes | drawdown, crowding |
| Liquidity | Not read | Yes | nothing fed it |
| Depositor concentration | Moderate | Yes | concentration |
| Operatinglimited scope: continuity of the observed record; not a review of operations | Low | Yes | consistency |
| Controller | Not read | No | who may move the money |
| Evidence | Not scored | No | 4 of 5 components read, 1 refused (79% 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.
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 47%, 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 0.29 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.
Unexamined is not acceptable, and this is not part of the overall band either way.
By weight, 65 of the 82.5 points that apply were read, which is 79% 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 (1,009) and the share price read from the contract at past blocks, reconstructed afterwards (52) exist and are not mixed in: one series, one source.
$53,430 of this vault's $570,428 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 19 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? | —Access control has not been read for this vault. Who can move the money, and how quickly, is unknown. That is not the same as nobody being able to. | Not 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.
Band width is dollars on one scale. Attributed supply only: a vault in many markets at once reports less here than it holds.
2 markets read, $570.5k attributed. 1 of them has 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.