Entirely agree with your defined terms but it’s better to describe the roles better as: 1 - structurer (aave / markets style) 2 - asset manager / RIA (“earn” vaults) 3 - underwriter (pareto) Our legal opinion is that 1 and 3 are not regulated activity.

Maybe agree - but this is so jurisdiction dependent that it can be deemed misleading - you mean re. US right? Based on RIA reference

They may or may not be investment managers - it depends on the assets they’re advising on. And even if they are, not all investment managers are managers of “funds,” which has a defined legal meaning. Not all vaults are “funds.”

Most vaults fit the classic definition of a fund

Great time to be a fund manager 👊🏻🙌🏻

Let Matthew cook

Haha yes. The only caveat is when it is indeed rule-based. It's actually pretty rare. So many platforms breach the law in two ways 1. Issuing securities without the right to do so and 2. Asset management without a licence. That together means the users and investors in those projects are taking significant risks + others (like no enforceable legal claims etc.)

That's my issue with these newfound "tokenization" platforms. They're either actively managing users' USDT deposits or routing them to fund managers. Nothing is actually tokenized. They just act as a conduit for USDT LP.

what about risk advisors, vault infrastructure companies adding positions, companies running offchain to manage the accounting / NAV?

HEY MY LAWYER WOULD LIKE A WORD WITH YOU

The engineering version of this: if your contract has a role that can move user funds between strategies, that role is the fund manager, whatever the variable is named. I write this stuff and the permission structure gives it away every time. Regulators can read a repo too