Product Specification
June 2026
Ravariant Senior Credit Vault.
The product in one paragraph
The vault is a senior tranche of a NAV facility loan pool, issued as a transferable share token. Depositors put in USDC and receive a vault share token that accrues yield. The vault originates loans against fund NAV at 50 to 60 percent loan to value, against independent administrator NAV. The Ravariant underwriting methodology (published in document 02 of the data room) prices each loan and the dynamic margin engine re-margins continuously. Concentration limits are hard coded into the smart contract and disclosed monthly. Originator first loss is retained by Ravariant or a co-origination partner, so the residual risk to the senior is the diversified pool default rate.
The two sides of the product
| Side | Who they are | What they get |
|---|---|---|
| Borrowers | GPs and LPs needing NAV facility capital, especially in the $5M to $100M range underserved by major banks | Faster, cheaper, smaller-ticket NAV capital than the bank market at competitive terms |
| Capital providers (the senior vault depositors) | Stablecoin treasuries, crypto-native institutional credit funds, family offices with on-chain allocation, banks subscribing to senior secured private credit | Senior secured private credit yield, SOFR plus 300 bps typical, with transparent underwriting and diversified collateral |
Both sides need to be there in size for the product to work. The borrower side is well understood: the bank NAV facility market serves the top of the cohort and leaves a real gap below $50M loan size. The capital provider side requires more careful analysis, and is covered on pages 3 and 4 below.
The borrower side: who borrows and why
NAV facility lending is currently dominated by major banks and a small set of specialty private credit funds. They serve the top of the market well. The structural gap is in the middle and lower end of the cohort: GPs of $200M to $2B funds, LPs holding $20M to $200M positions, and family office or smaller institution LPs whose loan needs are below the bank minimum economic size.
| Borrower category | Loan size | Current bank market access |
|---|---|---|
| Large GP, $2B+ fund | $100M to $500M+ | Well served by major bank competition (JPM, GS, Citi, MS) |
| Mid-size GP, $500M to $2B fund | $30M to $100M | Mid-market specialty lenders; deal-by-deal, slower close |
| Small GP, $200M to $500M fund | $10M to $40M | Thin market; mostly relationship-based or none at all |
| Concentrated LP | $5M to $100M against personal LP interest | Almost nothing exists today at competitive terms |
| Family office holding multiple LP interests | $10M to $50M | Private wealth desks at major banks for very large clients; nothing for mid-size |
The vault is targeted specifically at the third, fourth, and fifth rows. The vault closes loans in 30 to 60 days against the published Ravariant methodology, with templated documentation. The borrower experience is closer to a bank credit committee process than to a crypto-native protocol because the underwriting workflow is institutional, but the borrower never touches a wallet or a smart contract directly. Borrowing happens through the standard borrower interface managed by Ravariant.
Typical economics for the borrower: SOFR plus 350 to 500 basis points, depending on fund quality and LTV. This is competitive with the lower end of the bank market for similar-sized loans and substantially better than what is currently available in the segments the vault targets.
Originator first loss
Ravariant retains the equity tranche on each loan funded by the vault. This is structural skin in the game. If the loan defaults, Ravariant's equity absorbs first loss before the vault depositors take any loss. This aligns underwriting incentives directly: Ravariant earns origination fees and the equity coupon when loans perform, and loses real money when they do not.
The capital provider side: who will actually deposit
This is the harder question. Naming specific cohorts and being honest about who will engage at launch versus who will engage later.
| Cohort | Addressable pool | Engagement at launch |
|---|---|---|
| Stablecoin treasuries (DAO and protocol treasuries: Uniswap, Aave, MakerDAO, Optimism, Lido, etc.) | $30 to 50 billion | High. They hold idle USDC at zero or T-bill yield and have explicit treasury mandates to deploy. |
| Crypto-native institutional credit funds (Cumberland, Galaxy Credit, Pantera, BH Digital, Apollo crypto credit, others) | $10 to 20 billion | High. They underwrite credit themselves and can evaluate the Ravariant methodology. They understand on-chain settlement. |
| Family offices with on-chain allocation | $10 to 30 billion (estimated) | Medium-high. They want institutional-quality assets, not pure crypto-native. Senior secured yield at 8 to 9 percent is attractive. |
| Banks subscribing as senior tranche buyers | $50 to 100 billion in private credit allocation budget | Medium. Some will engage as alternative to CLO senior tranches; others wait for track record. Cleanest entry through bank rail with USD settlement. |
| Insurance carrier general accounts (life insurance, annuity) | $200 to 400 billion potentially | Low at launch. They need 18 to 24 months of track record and rating agency coverage before allocating. They will engage once a major rating agency (S&P, Moody, Fitch) rates the vault senior tranche. |
| Pension and sovereign wealth funds | $500 billion plus globally | Low at launch. Same reason as insurance. They engage at Phase 2 or 3 of the rollout. |
The realistic launch capital comes from the first two cohorts. Stablecoin treasuries are the largest pool with the highest urgency: they hold tens of billions of USDC at zero or near-T-bill yields and have explicit treasury mandates to deploy into yield products. Crypto-native institutional credit funds are the second pool, with the sophistication to evaluate the underwriting and a track record of taking credit risk in size.
Family offices follow as a third wave, family-by-family, depending on their on-chain allocation and risk appetite. The bank channel as a subscriber requires more institutional onboarding work, and is realistic in months 6 to 18 after launch. Insurance and pension capital is the largest long-term pool but requires the vault to have a rating agency cover and a track record measured in years.
The honest launch capital target is $50M to $150M from the first two cohorts in the first six months, growing to $500M to $1B by month eighteen as the third cohort engages and the bank channel opens.
Why a capital provider would actually deposit
The answer depends on the alternative the capital provider is comparing against. For each realistic cohort, the comparison is concrete.
| Option | Yield (current) | Risk profile |
|---|---|---|
| Hold USDC unyielding | 0% | Issuer credit only |
| BUIDL or Ondo OUSG (tokenized T-bills) | ~5% | US Treasury credit; sponsor operational |
| Aave USDC supply | 3 to 6% variable | Crypto-native, smart contract, oracle |
| Maple Cash Management (post-restructuring) | 5 to 6% | Counterparty + smart contract |
| Centrifuge RWA pools | 7 to 10% | Underwriting variable, mixed track record |
| Ravariant Senior Credit Vault | 8 to 9% (SOFR + 300 bps) | Senior secured against fund NAV, 50 to 60% LTV, diversified, institutional underwriting |
For a stablecoin treasury holding $50M of USDC, the move from BUIDL at 5% to the senior vault at 8 to 9% generates $1.5M to $2M of additional annual yield. The credit risk is real but priced and diversified. The senior position absorbs losses only after the originator equity tranche takes them first. The Ravariant methodology is published and auditable. This is meaningfully different from the underwriting story Maple, Goldfinch, or Centrifuge had at launch.
The objections and the answers
| Concern | Response |
|---|---|
| On-chain credit products have a poor track record (Maple, Goldfinch, Centrifuge) | Those products had thin underwriting, uncollateralized or weakly collateralized loans, concentrated counterparty risk, and limited transparency. The Ravariant vault has institutional methodology, senior secured collateral against admin NAV, hard concentration limits, monthly loan-level disclosure, and originator equity retention. |
| The underlying loans are illiquid | True. The vault has a 12-month minimum lock-up. Capital providers commit knowing this. Beyond 12 months, redemptions are processed monthly against pool cash flow. This is comparable to closed-end credit fund commitments and shorter than direct LP commitments to private credit funds. |
| Why not just buy a public BDC? | BDCs offer comparable yield but with stock price volatility, double fee layer, and tax inefficiency. The vault gives direct senior secured exposure to NAV facility credit without the public market wrapper. |
| Smart contract risk | Two independent audits, formal verification of core logic, insurance fund seeded by originator equity flows, multi-sig governance with timelock on upgrades. |
| Counterparty risk in the loans | Senior secured at 50 to 60% LTV against admin NAV. NAV facility default rates have been under 1% across major lenders 2018 to 2024. Recovery values are high given senior secured position against fund assets. |
| Regulatory uncertainty | Vault structured as a fund interest issued by a Cayman vehicle with Reg D 506(c) access for US accredited and broader access for non-US qualified. Documented compliance framework. |
The vault structure
The vault has three tranches. The senior is the primary subscription product. The mezzanine is available to sophisticated capital providers at launch. The equity is held by Ravariant as originator first loss.
| Tranche | Position | Target yield | Holder |
|---|---|---|---|
| Senior | Last loss; first paid | SOFR + 250 to 400 bps | Stablecoin treasuries, crypto credit funds, family offices, banks |
| Mezzanine | Second loss | SOFR + 500 to 800 bps | Specialty credit funds, sophisticated allocators |
| Equity (first loss) | First loss; residual | Residual cash flows | Ravariant retained; co-origination partners may participate |
Deposit, distribution, withdrawal mechanics
| Term | Specification |
|---|---|
| Deposit currency | USDC |
| Minimum deposit | $50,000 |
| Vault share token | Issued to depositor; accrues yield via rebase or share price growth |
| Distribution cadence | Monthly interest distribution (cash) or compounded into share token |
| Lock-up period | 12 months from deposit |
| Post-lock-up redemption | Monthly redemption windows; processed against pool cash flow with prorata if oversubscribed |
| Maximum single deposit | $25 million (concentration limit per depositor) |
| Total pool size cap (Phase 1) | $250 million |
| Loan-level transparency | Monthly trustee report on chain; concentration, vintage, manager exposure disclosed |
| Audit | Annual financial audit by tier-1 audit firm; quarterly compliance audit of methodology adherence |
The 12-month lock-up is the operational fit between the asset (1 to 3 year senior secured loans) and the capital. Depositors commit knowing the lock-up. After the lock-up, monthly redemption is funded from natural loan amortization and refinancing flow. The pool is structured so that monthly redemption capacity is roughly 5 to 8 percent of pool AUM in steady state, sufficient to absorb normal redemption demand.
What makes this different from prior on-chain credit products
The history of on-chain credit lending products is mixed. Maple Finance took losses on uncollateralized loans to Alameda, Babel Finance, and Auros Trading during the 2022 cycle. Goldfinch had concentration issues. Centrifuge had underwriting variability across pool delegates. Capital providers in those products had limited visibility into what they owned and limited ability to act on warning signs.
The Ravariant Senior Credit Vault is structured differently in seven specific ways.
| Feature | Prior products typical | Ravariant Senior Credit Vault |
|---|---|---|
| Collateral position | Often unsecured or weakly collateralized | Senior secured against fund NAV at 50 to 60% LTV |
| NAV source | Self-reported by borrower | Independent third party administrator |
| Underwriting methodology | Pool delegate judgment, opaque | Published Ravariant methodology, SR 11-7 governed |
| Concentration limits | Often violated in practice | Hard coded in smart contract, disclosed monthly |
| Originator skin in game | Nominal or absent | Equity tranche retained by Ravariant; aligned losses |
| Loan-level transparency | Limited or absent | Monthly trustee report on chain |
| Default monitoring | Manual, after the fact | Dynamic margin engine continuously re-evaluating |
Underwriting is the moat. The product spec page (page 5) shows the operational mechanics. The seven differences above are why the same capital that did not engage with Maple at launch will engage with this vault: the underwriting story is institutional, transparent, and aligned. The vault is what the on-chain credit category was supposed to be when it launched, built with the methodology discipline the category needed.
How banks engage with the vault
The vault is not a bank competitor. The vault complements bank origination by providing a capital base banks can tap into for specific use cases. Three engagement modes serve different bank needs.
| Mode | How it works | Bank benefit |
|---|---|---|
| Mode 1: Senior tranche subscriber | Bank deposits into the vault senior tranche as a yield product | Senior secured private credit yield at SOFR + 300 bps without origination effort; cleaner than CLO senior with on-chain transparency |
| Mode 2: Syndication channel | Bank originates a $300M loan, sells $150M senior tranche to the vault, keeps the equity and the client relationship | Capital relief on retained position; keeps client; earns origination fee and retained spread |
| Mode 3: Co-origination partner | Bank and vault underwrite the same loan together; bank holds the relationship and a portion; vault holds the senior tranche | Access to mid-market deals at scale the bank could not serve alone; shared origination cost |
In all three modes, the bank retains its origination franchise and client relationships. Ravariant operates the vault, the underwriting methodology, and the workflow. The bank pays the vault for senior tranche subscription (Mode 1), pays nothing and earns origination fee and equity spread (Mode 2), or shares origination and economics with Ravariant (Mode 3). None of these compete with the bank's existing NAV facility book.
Anchor bank partnership
The launch strategy includes a specific anchor bank partnership. A mid-tier commercial bank that has been growing its NAV facility book and faces Basel III endgame capital pressure is the cleanest first partner. The partnership covers Mode 2 (syndication) and Mode 3 (co-origination) for the first 18 months, with Mode 1 (subscription) opening to additional banks as the vault track record builds. The anchor bank gets first access to mid-market loans the vault originates, capital relief on retained positions, and joint marketing positioning.
Path to launch
| Phase | Target AUM | Capital provider mix |
|---|---|---|
| Months 0 to 6 (launch) | $50 to 150 million | Stablecoin treasuries and crypto-native credit funds primarily |
| Months 6 to 18 | $500 million to $1 billion | Add family offices; open bank subscription channel; add anchor bank syndication relationship |
| Months 18 to 36 | $1 to 3 billion | Add insurance carrier engagement once track record and rating agency coverage exists; expand to additional bank partners |
Regulatory structure
| Element | Approach |
|---|---|
| Vault entity | Cayman segregated portfolio company holding the loan assets |
| US capital provider access | Reg D 506(c) for accredited investors; ECP attestation required |
| Non-US capital provider access | Reg S structuring; Cayman or Luxembourg fund interest for institutional investors |
| Vault share token | Tokenized fund interest, transferable subject to whitelisting and jurisdictional eligibility |
| Loan documentation | Standard NAV facility loan documents under New York or English law; smart contract handles capital flow only |
| Tax treatment | US tax-transparent or PFIC structure depending on investor base; documented per investor type |
| Smart contract audit | Two independent audits; formal verification of core vault accounting logic |
| Insurance fund | Seeded from originator equity coupon; absorbs residual risk below the equity tranche |
Closing observation
The product is a senior tranche of a NAV facility loan pool, issued as a transferable share token. The borrower cohort is real and underserved at the size segments the vault targets. The capital provider cohort is identifiable, with stablecoin treasuries and crypto-native credit funds as the realistic launch capital, family offices and bank subscribers as the second wave, and insurance and pension capital as the long-term pool that engages once the track record and rating agency coverage exist. The vault is structurally different from prior digital credit products in the seven specific ways the methodology, collateral, and transparency disciplines impose. Banks engage as subscribers, syndication partners, or co-originators, not as competitors. The launch capital target of $50 to $150 million in six months is realistic from the first two capital provider cohorts alone, with growth to $1 billion by month 18 as the additional cohorts engage.
The vault sits downstream of the Ravariant Risk Methodology; the published metrics price each loan, and the vault is the senior claim on the pool. Ravariant creates the daily metrics that price the risk of private markets; this vault is one application of those metrics on the capital provider side.