A position you can carry.
Nacre mints a Tablet — a transferable ERC‑20 whose redemption price is read from the vault rather than quoted by anyone — and routes execution through Aperture, a batched private intent path for crypto and tokenised equities.
a patch of shell, computed tablet needs JavaScript 32 bilayers, aragonite on protein 417.5 and 578 nm are the same colour
Not a return. Everything else on this site follows from that sentence, including the shimmer at the top of the page.
A monotone share price and a redeemable claim are different promises.
Every vault in this category prices a share the same way: totalAssets divided by totalSupply. That number rises if and only if totalAssets rises, and there are exactly two ways to build totalAssets.
Make it a storage counter, incremented when fees are harvested in, and the price is monotone by construction. It is then a record of what has been credited — not a measurement of what the vault can pay out. If the liquidity position underneath it lost value against simply holding, the share price does not know and cannot say.
Make it a measurement of the position and the price is honest, tracks divergence loss, and is not monotone. It will go down.
Both are defensible. What is not defensible is the front page that advertises the first — harvested fees raise the share price, so it only goes up — beside the second — redeem for the underlying at the current price — because those are two different vaults, and whichever one was actually written, the page is describing the other.
Nacre uses storage accounting, so the price is monotone, and says on every page that carries it that a monotone price is an accounting artefact and not a return. The number that tells you whether you made money is on /tablet, it has three negative terms in it, and it is not the share price.
A liquidity position earns a fee and then sits there. Everything you might want to do with that capital starts by closing it.
Each carries its state on the card, in this band. A retraction on another page under a collapsed heading is not a retraction.
Tablet
Deposit the pool asset into a vault and receive an ERC-20 standing for your slice of it. Harvested fee income is added to the vault, and every share is worth more of the asset than it was.
max* views nobody implementsAperture
An order is expressed as an intent and settled in a batch, so it is not a signed swap sitting in a public mempool waiting to be read. Designed, specified here, and not built.
Prismatic
Tokenised equities are a different material bonded to the same shell. They settle against a venue that is shut 80.7% of the week, and every hard problem on that desk is that one fact.
4 calls on one contract — which is what the heading says, because a heading that says “four contracts” above four functions is rule 2.
You send the pool asset to the vault. It is credited to a storage variable, so a stray transfer into the contract changes nothing for anyone holding a share.
The vault mints Tablets at the current price. The first deposit is 1:1; every later one pays what a share is already worth, plus a virtual share so the first depositor cannot round the second down to zero.
The hook credits collected swap fees to the vault. The protocol cut is taken first, at a rate the contract caps; the rest raises every share by the same factor, in register, which is what the word means.
Burn the share, take the underlying at the current price. No epoch, no queue and no owner check on the path — a claim about this contract and not about wherever the assets are ultimately deployed.
Lustre is one word for several separate optical effects. A single yield figure is the same trick: the positive term, with the others deleted.
Conditional on purpose: nothing below is running anywhere.
One approval for the asset, one deposit into a listed vault. The Tablet appears in the wallet as an ordinary token, because it is one.
It transfers, it can be sold, and it can be posted anywhere an ERC-20 is accepted. Harvests raise its redemption price while you hold it.
Burn for the underlying at the computed price — and check that number against Lustre, because the share price is not your return.
4 properties hold by construction and one gap undoes part of them. The gap is in this list, because a security section that keeps its trust assumption on another page is not a security section.
Assets are tracked in a storage variable, not read back from balanceOf(address(this)). Sending tokens to the vault changes nothing for anyone holding a share.
Rests on The accounting. No key, no oracle, no assumption.
A virtual share and virtual asset offset the ratio, so the classic inflation attack — deposit one wei, donate a large amount, watch the next depositor mint zero — cannot be primed.
Rests on The accounting. Note the two guarantees interact: with donations already invisible to pricing, the virtual share is defence in depth rather than the primary control, and a page that presents it as the primary control has explained the wrong mechanism.
The cut is applied to harvested fee income and cannot be set above a constant compiled into the contract, by the owner or by anyone else.
Rests on The constant. But a cap on the rate is not a cap on the fee: the basis matters as much as the rate, and both are published on /umbo.
The sweep path can only move assets in excess of what shareholders are owed. The backing of the outstanding supply is not reachable from any privileged call.
Rests on The accounting, plus the assumption that the excess calculation is right. This is the property most worth attacking and it has had no external review.
An owner address can point the vault at a harvester and can move the protocol cut anywhere below the cap. That is a trust assumption, it is not removed by any of the four properties above, and it belongs in this list rather than in a paragraph on another page.
Rests on Nothing. This is the gap, stated where the guarantees are.
Every one was found on a live, funded product in this category, by an audit run against the chain rather than against the copy. No site is named; the point is that these are structural. 10 of the 15 are enforced here by a build check — the other five are obeyed by discipline, which is the weaker kind, and they say so.
An ERC-20 standing for a claim on a vault. One Tablet is worth totalAssets / totalSupply of the underlying, and because totalAssets is a storage variable that moves on harvest, that number does not fall.
It is an ordinary token, so a wallet, a DEX or a lending market can handle it without special support — which is a claim about ERC-20, not about ERC-4626. See the next answer.
That is a question with a checkable answer, which is why it is here. ERC-4626 requires maxDeposit, maxMint, maxWithdraw and maxRedeem, and requires that they MUST NOT revert. Vaults in this category routinely ship without them and claim the standard anyway; an integrator's first call then reverts.
Nacre's vault implements all four. Nothing is deployed, so the honest form of the claim is: the interface is written and it is not running anywhere.
No, and this is the most important answer on the site. The share price is denominated in the pool asset and moves only when fees are credited. It does not include the asset's own price, and under storage accounting it cannot include divergence loss on the position underneath.
A monotone price is an accounting artefact. Your return is on /tablet, it has three negative terms, and the share price is one positive term inside it.
Nothing. Not a vault, not a hook, not a token. The deployments table on /security has a row per component and every row says so.
There has been no external review of anything, and the guarantee most worth attacking — that no privileged call can reach principal — is the one that most needs it.
It is a patch of nacre, seen from above, and each cell is one aragonite tablet. The colour is computed — the reflectance of a 32-bilayer stack by transfer matrix, integrated against the CIE 1931 colour matching functions — and it changes because the stack is getting thicker.
It is there because it is the argument. Interference is periodic in optical thickness, so the map from thickness to colour is not one-to-one: two stacks 160nm apart in tablet thickness are the same colour to an OKLab difference of 0.011. The observable does not tell you how much is underneath it, which is exactly what a monotone share price does not tell you about a position.
The parameter table prints its holes, the deployment table has 0 deployed rows, and the open questions are consequences of the design rather than a wish list.