AUTOfinance

Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.

AUTOfinance routes deposits through Autopools that move liquidity across integrated DeFi venues automatically. A depositor receives an Autopool share while strategy and solver logic can exchange idle assets and LP positions among registered destinations after the deposit; the client cannot enforce Ketju’s approved-venue list or per-venue limits. The DefiLlama API read on 2026-08-15 reported about $34.7M across Ethereum, Base, Sonic, Arbitrum, Monad and Plasma, but size is not the durable v1 decision. Delegated allocation controls, with AMM-LP and staking look-through.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• The Autopool enforces an immutable or client-specific allowlist and per-destination limits covering only currently approved venues
• Position-level holdings, LP inventory, debt, realized losses and executable withdrawal liquidity become continuously independently verifiable
• A separate non-discretionary wrapper fixes its exposure and cannot add or resize destinations after the client deposits

The research file

Mechanism and class applicability

An AUTOfinance depositor selects an Autopool, supplies an asset and receives a yield-bearing ERC-4626-style receipt share. The Autopool monitors a curated set of destinations and rebalances idle assets into LP positions or swaps one destination LP position for another when its assigned strategy accepts a solver proposal. Rewards are compounded and can be redeployed somewhere other than their source. Because underlying venue exposure and weights change after the client deposits and the holder cannot enforce a client-specific approved-venue list, the v1 delegated-allocation dossier applies directly.

Current observation and look-through

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $34.7M of AUTOfinance TVL across Ethereum, Base, Sonic, Arbitrum, Monad and Plasma, still below $100M but no longer disposed of by size because a more fundamental rule applies. Current documentation identifies destination implementations for Balancer LPs, Aura-staked Balancer LPs, Curve LPs staked in Convex and Maverick boosted positions. A share therefore inherits each destination’s contracts, assets, incentives, staking dependencies and AMM inventory loss in addition to allocator-layer risk.

Control and strategy applicability

Each Autopool has a Strategy that decides whether a proposed rebalance meets configurable return, slippage and swap-cost tests; a permissioned keeper collects rewards and debt reporting revalues LP holdings at least daily. System registries enumerate Autopools and destination templates and vaults. The security design centralizes roles in an AccessController, permits local or system-wide pauses, and leaves SystemRegistry ownership for multisig and eventual governor control. These constraints may bound execution, but they do not give an advised holder authority to freeze portfolio exposures to Ketju-approved destinations.

Loss and exit applicability

Rebalancing incurs explicit swap cost and slippage, and destination LPs retain their underlying impermanent-loss and integration risks. AUTOfinance says deposits have no ordinary lock or cooldown and a holder may request withdrawal in a selected asset, but the system may need to burn destination LP units and swap the resulting tokens back to the base or requested asset. Receipt tokens must first be unstaked, price impact depends on destination liquidity, and global or local pause powers can suspend operations. “Withdraw anytime” therefore does not guarantee the displayed NAV or low-slippage proceeds under stress.

Why the shared dossier decides

The v1 delegated-allocation rule rejects AUTOfinance because the advisor cannot pin the client to a stable set of individually approved venues and limits while autonomous logic moves capital among destinations. A direct position preserves explicit venue selection and kill criteria; a truly non-discretionary wrapper could be reviewed separately. Reopen only if the product enforces an immutable or client-specific allowlist and caps, and position-level holdings, LP inventory, debt, realized losses and executable withdrawal liquidity are continuously independently verifiable.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• AUTOfinance Docs — Autopools mechanism · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: Autopool receipt share, destination set, autonomous rebalance, LP optimization, auto-compounding
• AUTOfinance Docs — current auto-rebalancing description · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: curated destinations, changing allocation, yield signals, rebalance costs
• AUTOfinance Docs — Autopool system flow · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: solver proposal, LP-to-LP rebalance, permissioned keeper, debt reporting, reward redeployment
• AUTOfinance Docs — strategy and rebalance controls · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: assigned strategy, slippage, return metric, swap loss, NAV test
• AUTOfinance Docs — destination-vault integrations · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: Balancer, Aura, Curve, Convex, Maverick, LP withdrawal
• AUTOfinance Docs — deposit and withdrawal · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: receipt tokens, no ordinary lock, unstaking prerequisite, withdrawal swap, slippage tolerance
• AUTOfinance Docs — contract roles and pause controls · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: RBAC, SystemRegistry owner, global pause, local pause, NAV coordination
• DefiLlama — AUTOfinance survey record, read 2026-08-15 · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, chain distribution, yield category, survey perimeter

Inherited controls

The verdict above grades the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The least safe layer sets the position’s grade, and the position table names which one that is.