Ember Protocol
Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.
Ember is a capital-allocation platform for launching and distributing traditional and on-chain financial products through crypto markets. At the 2026-08-14 survey, DefiLlama records about $99.7M across Ethereum, Base, Pharos, and Sui. The dispositive basis is delegated allocation: curators can run changing DeFi, CeFi, RWA and cross-chain strategies inside each vault.
- A named vault publishes a fixed mandate, venue and leverage caps, complete role authorities, holdings, valuation controls and stressed redemption outcomes
The research file
Mechanism
An Ember vault accepts assets and issues shares priced from reported NAV while a curator deploys capital through DeFi, CeFi, RWA or cross-chain strategies. Permissioned and permissionless configurations are supported. The receipt therefore represents a manager-run mandate rather than a single protocol claim.
Control and operating evidence
Curators select and operate strategies; vault roles and valuation processes determine reported share value and settlement. Ember publishes an audit and identifies Bluewater Labs incubation. Non-custodial vault contracts constrain transfers, but off-chain and cross-chain holdings still depend on managers, venues and valuation inputs.
Exit consequences
A holder requests redemption of vault shares against the manager’s available assets and NAV. Strategy capital can sit in another protocol, cease appearing as wallet-available balance, or require off-chain and cross-chain unwinds. The receipt cannot guarantee atomic cash at the displayed NAV.
Why the class rule decides
Ember explicitly delegates strategy, venue and cross-chain allocation to curators, which is the advisory layer this program must retain. The delegated-allocation class is therefore more accurate than a near-threshold size result. A named vault can reopen with a fixed mandate, caps, role map, holdings, valuation and stressed-redemption record.
Sources
The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.
- Ember Docs — vault platform and strategy scope · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
Supports: curator-managed vaults, DeFi and CeFi, RWA strategies, cross-chain scope, permissioning - Ember Docs — vault shares and NAV accounting · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
Supports: vault shares, NAV fees, external deployment, strategy custody - Ember Docs — audit and leverage dependencies · primary · accessed 2026-08-14
Supports: audit report, borrowing, looping, external protocols - DefiLlama — Ember Protocol survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-14
Supports: survey TVL, chain distribution, allocator category
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.
| Chain | Verdict | Grade | Control constraint |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ethereum | Approved | sovereign | No sequencer, no upgrade key, no operator who can be compelled — rule changes require social consensus. |
| Sui | Rejected | freezable | freeze and seizure are demonstrated: standing validator deny lists began freezing the Cetus exploiter’s ~$162M within about 80 minutes, and a Foundation-organized vote later moved the frozen funds without the owner’s keys. |