How do you view the rapid rise of the all-chain revenue aggregation platform @SolvProtocol? In the past few months, Solv Protocol has accumulated over $1 billion in assets by building Solv Guard, a new asset management paradigm for the Bitcoin yield track, and collaborating closely with MerlinChain, Babylon, BNBChain, and recently GMX. Why? Next, I'll share my observations.

In my opinion, SolvProtocol's rapid growth is due to its position in the booming "Restaking+Yield" track, which expands to the entire chain environment with BTC as the core asset. Simply put, with the popularity of Bouncebit, Ethena, and many other Restaking projects, a hybrid CeFi management and DeFi market circulation project called "CeDeFi" has attracted attention.

With the rise of such projects, it is imperative to build a transparent and trusted environment for the circulation and aggregation of secure assets. Solv Guard aims to provide middle-layer "transparent contract management" services for such projects, making asset control permissions more controllable. Specifically:

1. Combining the centralized management efficiency of CeFi and the decentralized liquidity security of DeFi has increasingly become a new mainstream paradigm in asset management. This is due to the maturity and compliance of Crypto custodial institutions in CeFi custody, which also can gain a certain "trust", thus becoming one of the "efficiency" preference choices in balancing the security, decentralization, and efficiency of the impossible triangle problem, which makes a lot of sense.

Using the BTC cross-chain bridge scenario as an example: adopting a pure technical native cross-chain method has a long development cycle and uncertainty. Directly using centralized custody institutions such as Cobo and Ceffu as "bridges" can quickly implement cross-chain solutions for assets, thereby promoting the rapid implementation of BTC layer2 projects without getting stuck on cross-chain bridge issues.

The translation of the given text from Chinese Simplified to English is as follows:

"Taking POS assets staking as an example: Purely staking POS assets can only obtain native rewards for providing asset staking to the public chain. However, before becoming staking assets, a large amount of assets can first go through traditional CeFi managers and generate certain profits off-chain. This enhances the source of income for POS assets."

Therefore, CeDeFi type projects can become the focus itself, which is also the result after the impossible triangle trade-off, fully combining the management and efficiency of CeFi with the decentralized transparent circulation application environment of DeFi. It is more suitable for projects with high technical barriers to decentralization, but with absolute advantages in operation and capital volume. Typical projects include: @Bouncebit, @ethena_labs, and recently noticed a stablecoin alpha project based on the CeDeFi concept, @BitU_Protocol, and so on.

In short, some projects with Web2 backgrounds tend to quickly land projects in the Crypto field after overcoming compliance issues, often preferring the advantages of capital size and usage efficiency, making the CeDeFi model the best solution.

2. The centralized part of CeDeFi is often connected to a custodian with compliance qualifications and long-term brand reputation. However, this solution is only a "transitional" one, and the general direction is still to pursue a decentralized architecture. In the custodial application scenario, how can we achieve more transparent and refined management?

The overall logic is to strive for transparency and on-chain contract management in terms of the usage permission of the custodian address, asset inflow and outflow, and management strategies such as multi-signature.

As we all know, Fireblocks, as a custody SaaS service platform, provides custody institutions with an internal control Console platform that offers similar management functions. However, this is an internal process service, and external parties cannot supervise internal systemic misconduct.

The Solv Guard is based on its own ERC3525 contract standard and the exploration experience of SFT semi-fungible tokens. It has specially launched a public management platform that can be used by custodian institutions for technology increase, integrating all permission settings, authorization management, inflow and outflow review, etc. into a complete Authorization permission check mechanism. It serves as a "middleware" service layer, aligning the technological content when the "gain" centralized custodian institution meets the decentralized, thus reducing trust friction.

3. How to do it specifically? 1. Use the multi-signature contract address of Gnosis Safe to manage assets in the asset permission design of the custody address; 2. Since Safe multi-signature can only be used for simple Threshold threshold management, some more sophisticated complex permissions and conditional execution designs need to be nested in another layer of Solv Vault Guardian to achieve, for example: in this Guardian structure, custom target address permissions can be defined, Authorization permission checks can be configured, execution Rulers can be configured, and nested purpose-specific permission management contracts can be nested, and so on.

Simplified Chinese translation: 简单理解：Solv Guardian在Safe多签合约的基础上，进一步颗粒化了资金使用权限管理（合约、合约功能、ACL列表等），从流进流出以及过程中全生命周期为资金配置了合约化触发和透明化监督条件。比如：允许哪些合约，每个合约又允许哪些函数，每个函数是否对应相应的ACL权限列表等等。

English translation: Simply put, Solv Guardian further granularizes the management of fund usage permissions (contracts, contract functions, ACL lists, etc.) based on the Safe multi-signature contract. It provides contract-triggered and transparent supervision conditions for funds throughout their lifecycle, including inflows, outflows, and processes. For example, it determines which contracts are allowed, which functions are allowed for each contract, and whether each function corresponds to the respective ACL permission list, and so on.

At the same time, in order to avoid the situation where the fine-grained service results provided by the "middleware" make the "middleware" itself a new layer of centralized risk, Solv sets strict Governor permissions for Vault Guardian: first, the committee votes and then triggers the multi-signature management configuration, then waits for a certain Timelock period before finally being able to perform permission configuration, including upgrading and modifying transaction restrictions, address restrictions, rule restrictions, and more within the contract.

Above

So, how should we position the performance of Solv Protocol in enhancing asset management capabilities? It can be considered that Solv has added an extra layer of security to the industry-renowned Gnosis Safe, increasing its granularity of multi-signature management and security. It can also be considered that Solv has implemented a more Web3 Native "dimensional reduction" on SaaS unicorn service platforms like Fireblocks, incorporating a more industry development-oriented on-chain transparent contract management method into the custody industry's process norms.

In summary, the fundamental reasons for the rapid rise of Solv Protocol in the past few months are: 1) It is operating in the booming environment of CeDeFi demand for yield services, and has quickly established partnerships with MerlinChain, Babylon, GMX, Ethena, etc.; 2) It has mature financial scenario exploration experience with ERC3525 standard and SFT asset logic, enabling it to have the "extension" capability of granular new "transparent contract-based" asset management services.

In addition, it should be noted that with the establishment of the "commodity" attribute of ETH through the Ethereum ETF, the uncertainty of "regulation" has also become clear. Under the expectation of more off-exchange funds flowing in, the decentralized and transparent management of digital assets not only meets the market's need for a trusted environment, but also aligns with the "compliance" requirements of some regulatory authorities.

I believe that, in this context, Solv Protocol can also explore feasible "comprehensive compliance" solutions in terms of regulatory measures such as "KYC" and "Yield Vaults," as well as the balance between decentralized service concepts. This is also the foundation for expanding the CeDeFi industry's capital scale and providing stability to interest-bearing services.