{ "version": "https://jsonfeed.org/version/1.1", "title": "RIADeFi", "home_page_url": "https://riadefi.com/", "feed_url": "https://riadefi.com/feed.json", "description": "On-chain finance for financial advisors.", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "items": [ { "id": "https://riadefi.com/defi-for-rias/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/defi-for-rias/", "title": "DeFi for RIAs: an advisor’s guide to the asset, protocol, and chain", "summary": "A plain-English guide to DeFi for registered investment advisers: what it is, where yield comes from, and how to structure defensible due diligence.", "content_text": "DeFi is not one asset class and “the protocol” is not the whole risk. An advisor has to evaluate the asset held, the protocol holding it, and the chain settling it.\n\nWhat DeFi actually is\nDecentralized finance is lending, borrowing, trading, and asset management performed by software deployed to a blockchain. A lending protocol can match suppliers of capital with overcollateralized borrowers without a bank operating the ledger. The rules are visible in code and transactions settle on-chain. That description does not make the arrangement safe, decentralized in every respect, or appropriate for a client. It only identifies the mechanism. A USDC lending position, for example, combines an issuer-controlled dollar token, an upgradeable lending protocol, an oracle, and a settlement chain. Each dependency can fail differently.\n\nThe three-layer test\nEvaluate every position at three layers: Asset: What does the client legally and economically own? Who can freeze, redeem, dilute, or change it? Protocol: What contracts hold the asset? Who can upgrade or pause them? Which oracles, bridges, curators, and governance processes matter? Chain: Who orders transactions? Can the chain halt? Who controls upgrades and bridges? Working rule A position is only as strong as its weakest layer. “Non-custodial protocol” does not make an issuer-controlled asset sovereign.\n\nWhere the yield comes from\nYield is compensation paid by someone or created by some mechanism. Lending yield comes from borrowers. Staking yield comes from protocol issuance and transaction fees. Tokenized Treasury yield comes from the underlying government securities, less fees. Private-credit yield compensates the lender for borrower and recovery risk. Reward-token yield is often a temporary subsidy. Classifying the source matters more than comparing the percentage. Two positions displaying 5% may contain entirely different duration, liquidity, credit, smart-contract, and control risks.\n\nWhat belongs in the file\nA defensible process records the instrument, dependencies, thesis, disqualifiers, position limit, evidence, reviewer, review date, and observable events that revoke the decision. Rejections deserve the same documentation as approvals. They show that the universe was examined rather than merely ranked. Continue with the DeFi due-diligence checklist or compare DeFi and tokenized securities .", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Foundations", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/on-chain-finance/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/on-chain-finance/", "title": "On-chain finance for financial advisors: a field guide", "summary": "On-chain finance explained for financial advisors: tokenized assets, DeFi protocols, settlement networks, custody, liquidity, and fiduciary questions.", "content_text": "“On-chain” describes the operating rail, not the investment. The underlying exposure may be software-native, a conventional security, a commodity claim, or private credit.\n\nThe category map\nOn-chain finance includes crypto-native assets such as ETH, decentralized protocols such as Aave, stablecoins, tokenized fund shares, tokenized Treasuries, private-credit instruments, and blockchain settlement infrastructure. These products share a rail but not a risk model. An advisor should resist treating “digital asset” as a homogeneous allocation. The more useful first question is: what economic exposure exists before the token wrapper is considered?\n\nFour distinct exposures\nExposure Economic source Additional on-chain risk Native crypto asset Network use and market demand Chain governance, key management DeFi lending Borrower interest Contracts, collateral, oracle, liquidity Tokenized security Underlying security or fund Transfer agent, wallet, settlement, eligibility Stablecoin Reserve assets or on-chain collateral Issuer control, redemption, depeg, contracts\n\nWhat tokenization changes\nTokenization can change settlement speed, programmability, minimums, distribution, collateral mobility, and recordkeeping. It does not automatically change the legal nature, credit quality, duration, fee load, or suitability of the underlying investment. A tokenized Treasury fund remains a fund. A tokenized private-credit vehicle remains private credit.\n\nThe advisor’s sequence\nIdentify the underlying economic exposure. Identify the legal claim and eligible holder. Map custody, transfer, redemption, and control. Evaluate additional smart-contract and chain dependencies. Decide what evidence and monitoring the recommendation requires. For a closer classification, see tokenized assets for RIAs .", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Foundations", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/tokenized-assets/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/tokenized-assets/", "title": "Tokenized assets for RIAs: wrapper, exposure, and control", "summary": "A framework for RIAs evaluating tokenized assets: identify the underlying exposure, legal claim, transfer restrictions, redemption path, and control surface.", "content_text": "A token is a delivery format. It can represent a fund share, a debt claim, a commodity receipt, a deposit-like liability, or something with no off-chain claim at all.\n\nStart underneath the token\nWrite down what would remain if the blockchain record disappeared. Is the holder recorded by a transfer agent? Does the token represent a fund share, beneficial interest, note, commodity entitlement, or contractual redemption right? Which entity owes performance? If the answer is unclear, the instrument is not ready for client consideration.\n\nThen inspect the wrapper\nThe wrapper adds its own facts: supported chains, smart-contract administrator, wallet allowlists, transfer restrictions, upgrade authority, pause rights, bridges, and redemption workflow. These may improve operations while adding new dependencies. Do not infer Permissionless transfer does not prove unrestricted legal eligibility. Self-custody does not remove the issuer or transfer agent from a tokenized security.\n\nThe five-question record\nWhat is the underlying asset or strategy? What legal claim does the token holder possess? Who may hold, transfer, freeze, or redeem it? What happens when the chain or smart contract is unavailable? Which new risks exist solely because of tokenization?\n\nCompare like with like\nCompare a tokenized Treasury fund with other Treasury funds after accounting for fees, duration, liquidity, tax treatment, and access. Compare on-chain credit with credit, not with cash. Tokenization may be the operational advantage; it is rarely the complete investment thesis. Next: tokenized Treasuries and DeFi versus tokenized securities .", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Asset classes", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/asset-classes/tokenized-treasuries/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/asset-classes/tokenized-treasuries/", "title": "Tokenized Treasuries for advisors: what changes and what does not", "summary": "Tokenized Treasuries explained for financial advisors: underlying exposure, fund structure, eligibility, settlement, redemption, liquidity, and issuer control.", "content_text": "Putting Treasury exposure on-chain can improve settlement and collateral mobility. It does not turn a fund share into cash or remove issuer, eligibility, duration, and redemption constraints.\n\nIdentify the instrument\n“Tokenized Treasury” may refer to a registered fund share, a private fund interest, a note, or another claim backed by government securities. The portfolio, legal wrapper, shareholder eligibility, fees, and redemption terms determine the investment—not the ticker or chain.\n\nThe diligence comparison\nQuestion Conventional fund Tokenized form adds Portfolio Holdings, duration, credit Usually unchanged Ownership Books and records Wallet and transfer-agent mapping Liquidity Market or fund redemption On-chain transfer does not guarantee redemption Control Issuer and intermediaries Contract admin, pause, allowlist, chain\n\nAccess is part of the product\nSome offerings restrict purchasers, transfers, jurisdictions, or wallet addresses. Eligibility must be verified from current offering documents and the issuer—not inferred from a token’s presence in a wallet or secondary market. Acquiring an instrument outside its stated distribution path is not an implementation shortcut.\n\nSuitable use requires a real advantage\nThe advisor should be able to state why the tokenized implementation improves the client outcome: settlement, collateral use, operating hours, account minimum, transparency, or integration. “It is on-chain” is not itself a benefit. Compare the all-in outcome with a conventional Treasury fund and direct Treasury exposure.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Asset classes", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/asset-classes/stablecoin-yield/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/asset-classes/stablecoin-yield/", "title": "Stablecoin yield for RIAs: source, liquidity, and issuer risk", "summary": "A due-diligence framework for stablecoin yield: distinguish borrower interest, Treasury income, reward subsidies, credit risk, liquidity, and issuer controls.", "content_text": "A stable price target does not make the instrument cash, and a displayed APY does not identify the risk being taken to earn it.\n\nSeparate the stablecoin from the yield venue\nThe stablecoin has an issuer, reserve or collateral model, redemption path, blocklist policy, and depeg history. The venue adds borrower, smart-contract, oracle, governance, bridge, curator, and liquidity risks. Both must be approved. The chain is a third layer.\n\nClassify the yield source\nDisplayed yield Actual source Primary question Lending rate Borrower interest Collateral and utilization Tokenized cash yield Reserve or fund income Claim, fees, redemption Private-credit token Borrower credit spread Default and recovery Reward APY Token emissions Duration and sell pressure\n\nWhy a high rate can be an exit warning\nIn utilization-based lending markets, supply rates commonly rise as borrowed liquidity consumes the pool. The same condition that produces the attractive rate can reduce what suppliers can withdraw. Record both the rate and currently available liquidity, then stress an exit larger than one client’s position.\n\nMinimum monitoring record\nBase yield and reward yield shown separately Trailing period and observation timestamp Withdrawable liquidity and utilization Asset issuer and freeze authority Venue, oracle, bridge, and curator dependencies Depeg and redemption triggers Continue with on-chain liquidity .", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Asset classes", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/defi-checklist/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/defi-checklist/", "title": "DeFi due-diligence checklist for financial advisors", "summary": "A practical DeFi due-diligence checklist covering instrument, asset, protocol, chain, controls, liquidity, valuation, custody, tax, suitability, and monitoring.", "content_text": "A protocol audit is one input. Advisor diligence has to connect the client’s legal and economic exposure to every technical and operational dependency.\n\n1. Define the position\nName the exact token, contract, chain, protocol, market, and strategy. State the economic exposure and source of expected return. Identify the legal claim, issuer, counterparty, or lack of one. Record eligible investor and jurisdiction restrictions.\n\n2. Map the dependency stack\nAsset issuer, collateral, redemption, and freeze authority Protocol contracts, upgrades, pauses, governance, and audits Oracles, bridges, curators, keepers, relayers, and front ends Chain liveness, transaction ordering, validators, and upgrade control Wallet, custodian, signer, recovery, and transaction-approval workflow\n\n3. Test loss and exit\nHistorical exploits, bad debt, depegs, halts, and governance failures Observable liquidity at client size—not only TVL Redemption gates, queues, market depth, fees, and settlement delay Failure scenarios for oracle, bridge, collateral, issuer, and keys Expected recovery path and responsible party\n\n4. Make the decision monitorable\nWritten verdict and reasons Position or sleeve limit Observable kill criteria set before investment Named owner, next review date, and evidence archive Client-language risk statement and suitability rationale Version history for corrections and changed decisions Evidence standard If a fact can revoke the recommendation, record its source and monitoring method when the position is approved.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Due diligence", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/operations/digital-asset-custody/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/operations/digital-asset-custody/", "title": "Digital-asset custody for RIAs: control is more than key possession", "summary": "Digital-asset custody for RIAs explained through authority, key management, smart contracts, token issuers, recovery, transaction approval, and recordkeeping.", "content_text": "“Who holds the key?” is necessary but incomplete. An issuer may freeze the asset, governance may pause the protocol, and a signer may delegate transaction authority.\n\nPossession, authority, and control\nA wallet key authorizes transactions, but effective control can be distributed across multiple parties and contracts. Document who can sign, recover, rotate, delegate, upgrade, pause, freeze, or redeem. Do not compress these powers into the word “custody.”\n\nCommon operating models\nModel Control question Failure to plan for Qualified custodian What assets and protocols are supported? Asset availability and transfer delay Client self-custody Who can initiate and approve? Loss, coercion, recovery Multisignature Who are signers and what threshold? Signer loss or coordination Embedded wallet Where are key shares and policies? Provider dependency and recovery\n\nThe workflow is part of the control\nRecord address allowlisting, simulation, transaction review, signer separation, dollar limits, emergency pause, incident escalation, and evidence retention. A secure key attached to an informal approval process is not a complete control environment.\n\nRegulatory posture must be checked at implementation\nCustody treatment is fact-specific and may change with the account arrangement, authority, instrument, and service provider. Use current primary sources and counsel for the actual operating model. RIADeFi tracks the source layer in the regulatory ledger ; it does not issue legal conclusions.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Operations", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/regulation/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/regulation/", "title": "RIA digital-asset regulatory tracker: primary sources and open questions", "summary": "A source-first regulatory tracker for RIAs evaluating digital assets, tokenized securities, DeFi, custody, communications, tax, and market-structure developments.", "content_text": "The useful question is not whether regulation is “friendly.” It is which authority changed which rule, for whom, on what date, and what remains unresolved.\n\nHow to use this ledger\nThis page is an issue map, not legal advice. Each implementation should be checked against current rules, orders, releases, offering documents, contracts, and counsel. The ledger separates an official source from RIADeFi’s operational interpretation and records a review date. Publication rule No headline is treated as a green light. A development enters the ledger only when a primary document identifies the authority, affected activity, and effective posture.\n\nOpen issue map\nIssue Advisor implementation question Primary authority Asset status What exactly is being recommended or traded? SEC, CFTC, Congress, courts Custody Who has possession or authority, and under what arrangement? SEC investment-management materials Tokenized securities What offering, transfer, holder, and intermediary rules apply? SEC and offering documents DeFi interaction What activity does the adviser or client perform? Fact-specific; multiple authorities Communications How are risks, performance, and services described? SEC, state regulators, FINRA where applicable Tax and reporting What events and records must be captured? IRS and Treasury\n\nPrimary-source watchlist\nU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Crypto Task Force U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Investment Management — Investment Advisers Congress.gov Legislation search: digital assets FINRA Crypto Assets Internal Revenue Service Digital assets Commodity Futures Trading Commission Digital Assets Investor.gov Crypto Assets\n\nReview standard\nEvery future entry will record the document, publication and effective dates, affected party, changed obligation or permission, practical advisor implication, unresolved questions, reviewer, and superseded interpretation. Machine-readable entries are published at /regulation/ledger.json .", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Regulation", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/on-chain-finance/defi-vs-tokenized-securities/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/on-chain-finance/defi-vs-tokenized-securities/", "title": "DeFi versus tokenized securities: the distinction advisors need", "summary": "DeFi and tokenized securities can use the same blockchain while creating different legal claims, controls, return sources, eligibility rules, and diligence requirements.", "content_text": "The same settlement rail can carry software-native positions and conventional securities. Their diligence files should not look the same.\n\nMechanism is not instrument\nDeFi generally describes financial functions performed by smart contracts. A tokenized security is a security whose ownership or transfer is represented using blockchain infrastructure. A tokenized fund may interact with DeFi, and a DeFi receipt may wrap a tokenized asset, but the concepts are not synonyms.\n\nThe diligence split\nQuestion DeFi position Tokenized security Primary claim Contract-defined token or pool share Security, fund, note, or beneficial interest Return source Borrowers, fees, issuance, trading Underlying portfolio or issuer Control Governance, admins, or immutable code Issuer, transfer agent, plus contract admins Access Often technically permissionless May restrict holder and transfer eligibility Exit Pool withdrawal or market sale Redemption, transfer, or market sale\n\nWhen the stack combines both\nA DeFi vault may hold a tokenized Treasury fund. The client then depends on the fund portfolio, issuer, transfer agent, eligibility controls, token contract, vault contract, curator, oracle, and chain. The underlying security analysis does not replace the protocol analysis, and vice versa.\n\nThe practical classification\nWrite the position as a sentence: “The client owns [legal/economic claim], represented by [token], held through [wallet/custodian], deployed in [protocol], settling on [chain].” Any blank becomes a diligence task.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Foundations", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/smart-contract-risk/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/smart-contract-risk/", "title": "How financial advisors should evaluate smart-contract risk", "summary": "A practical smart-contract risk framework for financial advisors covering scope, upgrades, dependencies, audits, bug bounties, incidents, governance, and monitoring.", "content_text": "“Audited” is not a verdict. It identifies one kind of review performed on a particular version, scope, and date.\n\nDefine the exact code path\nRecord the deployed contract addresses, network, implementation version, proxy structure, market or vault, and every contract called in the normal deposit and withdrawal path. Protocol brands often contain several products with different code and administrators.\n\nRead audits as scoped evidence\nFor each audit, record firm, date, commit hash, scope, exclusions, findings, remediation, and whether deployed code matches reviewed code. Count is less important than relevance. Formal verification can prove specified properties; it cannot prove that the specification captured every economic failure.\n\nMap change authority\nUpgradeable proxy administrator Pause or emergency powers Governance proposal and execution thresholds Timelocks and security councils Oracle and collateral parameter setters Front-end or API dependencies An immutable protocol trades repairability for predictability. An upgradeable protocol trades adaptability for administrative risk. Neither label decides suitability by itself.\n\nHistory and live monitoring\nReview exploits, bad debt, near misses, governance failures, oracle incidents, bridge failures, and response quality. Then define live triggers: code upgrade, new admin, shortened timelock, oracle change, unexpected pause, unaudited market, or loss event. Smart-contract diligence expires whenever the code or authority changes.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Due diligence", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/on-chain-liquidity/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/on-chain-liquidity/", "title": "How to evaluate on-chain liquidity before recommending yield", "summary": "An advisor framework for on-chain liquidity: distinguish TVL, withdrawable liquidity, utilization, market depth, redemption queues, slippage, and stressed exits.", "content_text": "TVL says how much is present. It does not necessarily say how much a client can withdraw, redeem, or sell at an acceptable price.\n\nUse the right liquidity measure\nMeasure What it answers What it misses TVL How much value the protocol reports Borrowed, locked, or unavailable capital Available liquidity What can be withdrawn from a lending pool now Future borrower and depositor behavior Market depth What can be sold near the quoted price Issuer redemption and market stress Redemption capacity What the issuer will redeem and when Secondary-market execution\n\nSize the client, not the protocol\nCalculate the client position as a share of immediately available liquidity and realistic market depth. A venue can be large in aggregate while a particular asset, chain, vault, or maturity is too small for the intended position.\n\nStress the path out\nNormal withdrawal at current utilization Withdrawal after utilization rises Secondary sale with measured slippage Issuer redemption with stated gates and cutoffs Chain congestion, pause, oracle failure, or depeg Document which exit path is contractual, which is technical, and which depends on another market participant.\n\nMonitor the warning variables\nTrack available liquidity, utilization, market depth, redemption queues, depeg, bridge inventory, withdrawal fees, and governance changes. A rising yield paired with falling liquidity is a risk signal, not automatically an opportunity.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Due diligence", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] }, { "id": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/defensible-file/", "url": "https://riadefi.com/due-diligence/defensible-file/", "title": "What belongs in a defensible digital-asset due-diligence file", "summary": "A recordkeeping model for digital-asset due diligence: scope, sources, verdict, limits, risks, kill criteria, approvals, monitoring, corrections, and version history.", "content_text": "The goal is not a long memo. It is a reproducible decision whose evidence, limits, owner, and revocation conditions remain visible after the market changes.\n\nDecision header\nExact instrument, token, contract, protocol, market, and chain Verdict: approved, approved with limits, deferred, or rejected Reviewer, approval date, next review, and version Eligible accounts, intended role, and maximum position\n\nEvidence body\nEconomic exposure and return source Legal claim, issuer, redemption, and eligibility Asset, protocol, chain, oracle, bridge, and custody dependencies Fees, liquidity, valuation, tax, and operational workflow Incidents, counterevidence, unresolved questions, and source archive\n\nKill criteria\nKill criteria are observable facts that revoke or force review of the decision: an exploit above a threshold, admin change, new collateral class, liquidity floor, depeg duration, shortened timelock, regulatory restriction, issuer change, or missed disclosure. Define the threshold and data source before approval.\n\nCorrections are part of the product\nNever silently rewrite the prior decision. Supersede it. State what the earlier version claimed, why it was incomplete or wrong, what evidence changed, and how the verdict or limit changed. A visible correction improves the record because it demonstrates process rather than hindsight. Refusals matter A documented rejection proves that selection criteria can actually exclude attractive-looking products.", "date_published": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "date_modified": "2026-08-02T12:00:00-04:00", "authors": [ { "name": "Jon Ragsdale", "url": "https://riadefi.com/about/" } ], "tags": [ "Due diligence", "RIA", "on-chain finance" ] } ] }