What we sell

A fund holds a position in a DeFi protocol. At month or quarter end it has to report what that position earned. Today that means a dashboard screenshot or a block explorer export, and nobody can check either one. We sell a signed receipt for what a position earned between two dates, that a stranger can verify without asking us anything.

A link, one per position per period, showing the return, the exact dates it covers, and the two readings it was calculated from. Plus a file for the audit folder containing those two readings, each signed, the arithmetic, and the verifier program.

At month end the accountant opens the link and takes the figure. It goes into the NAV or the factsheet. The file goes into the audit file. The auditor runs the program, it prints PASS, and they sign off. What used to be we believe the manager becomes we ran the check.

Proof that a specific wallet held a specific amount of a specific token at a specific past moment. For example: this wallet held 4,182,000 USDC at 17:00 UTC on 31 August.

A file containing the reading, the exact block it was taken from, several independent data sources agreeing on it, a signature, and the verifier.

Attach it to a year end pack, an investor report, or a due diligence answer. The recipient runs the program instead of believing a screenshot. A screenshot proves nothing, and a block explorer link proves only now. This proves then, which is what an audit actually asks for.

The same thing across time rather than at one instant: a dated series of what a wallet held, each entry signed, with one fingerprint covering the whole series so nothing can be quietly inserted or removed later.

This is the raw input to a net asset value calculation. The accountant needs holdings at each valuation date, and today rebuilds that by hand from explorer exports. Here it arrives already dated and already signed.

Quantities, not valuations, so your own pricing policy stays yours. You value the position the way you always have; we settle what was held.

A continuous daily signed record of what a protocol's rate actually was. Not our opinion of it. The protocol's own number, taken at a fixed time each day.

A web address per series returning the full history as JSON or spreadsheet ready CSV, every row individually signed, with gaps in coverage listed explicitly rather than smoothed over.

An index provider or benchmark administrator builds a published rate from inputs it must be able to defend. A quant backtests against a history nobody can accuse them of curating. Free sources of this data are unsigned, undated at source, and silently revised. Ours cannot be revised after the fact.

For a pool position, the answer to a question a single blended rate destroys: how much did I earn, as opposed to how much did the prices move?

Three numbers, reported separately: trading fees earned, and the change in each of the two tokens held.

Report the fee income as income and the token movements as market movement, which is what accounting rules require.

Because a single blended figure would need a price feed, and a price feed is one more thing you would have to trust. Three separate numbers keep the evidence to what the chain itself records.

Not our prediction. The market's own price for a future yield, recorded on the day it was quoted. Certain markets price a yield all the way to a fixed maturity date, which is a number that embeds what traders actually believe will happen. We read five of those markets once a day and sign what we read.

On 14 September the market priced one stablecoin yield, out to its maturity, at 4.89%. That reading is now signed and dated, and neither we nor anyone else can go back and change it.

Anybody can say afterwards that they called it. A prediction only counts as evidence if it was written down before the answer was known, by something incapable of editing it later. A signature at the moment of reading is exactly that, and nothing else on the market gives you it.

A research desk or a manager publishes a rate view. When the maturity date arrives, the signed record shows what the market said and when, so a track record can be audited rather than asserted. It works in the other direction too: if a counterparty told you in August that a given return was achievable, the August reading is on the record.

You report a figure. A public data source shows a different one for what looks like the same thing. An auditor, an investor or an allocator asks which is correct. Today that conversation ends in two screenshots and whoever is more insistent.

A dated, signed record carrying both figures, the period they cover, and the exact size of the gap between them. Either side can verify it independently, so neither has to accept the other's word for what was compared or when.

File it with the figure. It turns "whose screenshot do we believe" into a documented difference with a number attached, which is a question somebody can actually go and answer.

Usually both are, because they measure different things. Ours is the realized return between two signed readings. A public feed is typically an average of daily quoted rates. On one real comparison our figure read 3.62% against a reference's 3.31% over 77 days, a genuine 31 basis point gap, while that same reference's most recent daily reading sat within a basis point of ours. Both were correct. A record declaring one of them wrong would be the overclaim, and the gap itself is the finding.