Gami Labs

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

Gami Labs runs on-chain asset-management vaults with active curation and dynamic risk management across multiple chains including Stellar, Ethereum, and Base. The DefiLlama API read on 2026-08-15 showed about $52M TVL, below our $100M materiality line. Rejected on size: an advisory book moved into a venue this size on the same research becomes the exit crush, whatever the vaults’ quality. If it crosses the line and holds, the reopened memo would apply the same test we put to every curated vault: whether the curator’s mandate and current allocations are disclosed well enough to underwrite the delegation.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• TVL sustained above $100M for 30 days

The research file

Mechanism applicability

Gami describes itself as an onchain vault curator and asset manager. Depositors enter vaults whose assets are actively allocated and rebalanced across lending markets, fixed-income venues, liquidity pools and incentive programs. That protocol-specific mechanism establishes that Gami is an investable vault venue whose tracked capital is relevant to the v1 below-materiality dossier; it does not establish that any strategy is approved.

Protocol-specific evidence boundary

Gami’s current site names Aave, Morpho, Silo, Curve, Pendle and Spectra among its permitted strategy venues and describes monitoring and multisignature or MPC operational controls. A live vault page also exposes strategy allocation and fee fields. This class application records those facts only to identify active delegated allocation. It does not validate mandates, authorities, valuation, audits, incidents, insurance or each underlying protocol.

Current observation and exit relevance

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $52.0M across Gami-curated vaults, with Ethereum and Stellar the largest components. At that size, an advised sleeve could be material to the reported venue. Because allocations are actively managed, withdrawal capacity also depends on each vault’s settlement design and the liquidity of its current positions, neither of which is passed by this size-gated application.

Why the shared dossier decides

Gami is below the v1 dossier’s $100M materiality threshold, so the protocol is rejected on capacity before individual vault underwriting. Review reopens only after the same tracked Gami perimeter remains at or above $100M for 30 consecutive days. That event triggers, but does not satisfy, a vault-by-vault review of mandate, allocations, authorities, valuation, fees, incidents and stressed redemption.

Sources

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

• Gami Labs — vault platform and strategy venues · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: curated vault identity, active rebalancing, underlying protocol types, operational controls
• Gami Labs — curation and risk-management approach · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: asset-manager role, delegated allocation, monitoring, MPC governance
• DefiLlama — Gami Labs survey record, read 2026-08-15 · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, chain distribution, risk-curator 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.