RIADeFi
Refusal file · other

Why Ketju rejected AFI Protocol

Memo v1Published by Ketju Research

A registry memo, published verbatim and versioned. Superseded versions are recorded, never edited away. A rejection is a judgment for Ketju's client base and thesis, not a universal safety claim. Not investment, legal, tax, or compliance advice.

The memo

REJECTED ON TOTAL OPERATOR OPACITY. AFI Protocol runs an ERC-4626 vault, afiUSD, layering stablecoin lending, Pendle principal-token accumulation, and leveraged PT loops, plus a second, currently institutional-only vault backed by a separate entity's tokenized real-world assets. No operating entity name appears anywhere in AFI's own Terms of Use, custody framework, or KYC policy — the closest thing to a legal disclosure is that the Terms are governed by the law of Nevis, with no arbitration clause and no named counterparty. No team member, founder, or investor identity was found in any source this review could access. Access to the flagship vault currently requires an invite code obtained through Telegram, an unusual gate for a product marketed as permissionless. A critical-severity finding in AFI's primary token contract was identified in an August 2025 Cantina audit and is reported resolved, but the combination of an anonymous team and an offshore legal wrapper with no disclosed principal is independently disqualifying regardless of that remediation.

What would reopen the file

  • A named operating entity and jurisdiction of incorporation are disclosed
  • Team, founder, and investor identities are publicly disclosed
  • The invite-code access gate is removed or explained, resolving the tension with the product's permissionless marketing claim
  • The afi-rwaUSDi vault's custody, redemption, and eligibility terms are publicly documented once it reopens beyond institutional-only access

Facts on file

Verdict
Rejected
Exposure
other
Chains examined
Base, Ethereum, Monad
Memo version
v1
Reviewed
Next review

← All published refusals