As capital increasingly moves onchain, institutions are now considering what will define the base rate of onchain finance.
At Vault Summit in Cannes, a panel moderated by Redwan Meslem of the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance brought together leaders including Merlin Egalite of Morpho, Rafael Mastroberardino of Franklin Templeton, Paul-Adrien Hyppolite of Spiko, and Lancelot de Ferrière of Hyli.
The panel discussed how onchain money market funds and lending vaults compete for institutional capital, and how institutions assess allocation as yield, liquidity, and risk profiles diverge.
The discussion extended beyond yield to address infrastructure, risk frameworks, and operational constraints that determine whether these products can support large-scale institutional allocation.
At this point, we’re well aware that institutional Ethereum is moving from experimentation to production.
Tokenization is no longer the primary constraint; the challenge now lies in subsequent steps.
From tokenization to allocation
The market is shifting from asset creation to asset utilization. “Now it’s super easy to tokenize assets… but then what? What do you do with that asset?”
This is the challenge institutions are currently addressing. Tokenization provides representation, while infrastructure determines usability.
This distinction is critical: assets gain significance only when they can be allocated, integrated, and governed within institutional systems.
Different instruments, different base rates
Onchain markets are fragmenting into multiple base rates rather than converging toward a single benchmark.
“There is a yield curve derived from crypto-backed loans… different from the yield curve of traditional finance. The two will probably not converge.”
This shift is changing how institutions approach cash management..
- Tokenized money market funds: stability and predictability
- Onchain lending vaults: market-driven yield and flexibility
These products are not interchangeable, instead they represent distinct infrastructure layers, each serving different mandates.
Risk is becoming programmatic.
Onchain infrastructure enables a more precise approach to risk modeling.
“Risk is a spectrum.”
This level of precision is essential for institutional allocation.
Instead of broad categories, risk can be defined by collateral, isolated by the market, enforced through infrastructure.
This transition shifts risk management from policy to system design.
Efficiency without additional risk
Onchain infrastructure does not generate yield; it optimizes existing yield.
“If the token is actually the asset… There should not be any risk premium. Blockchain just makes it much more efficient.”
This is a fundamental point for institutional adoption:
• Yield remains tied to underlying assets
• Infrastructure improves access and capital efficiency
In practice, this results in fewer intermediaries, faster settlement, and better collateral utilization.
In some cases, this may compress returns, which indicates more efficient markets rather than a weakness.
Transparency and institutional requirements
Onchain systems provide enhanced visibility.
“Bringing real-time transparency… is actually quite valuable.”
But institutional constraints remain:
“No treasurer wants all his information to just be available to the market.”
This tension highlights the need for infrastructure evolution.
Institutional Ethereum requires transparency for verification and privacy for execution. Addressing this issue is essential for production deployment.
Integration is the real bottleneck.
The primary constraint is integration, not product design.
“They don’t want to use a separate protocol or a new infrastructure. They would like to have it inside their own systems.”
This is the critical factor determining adoption success.
Institutions require compatibility with existing systems, standardized interfaces, predictable infrastructure behavior. Without these elements, even high-quality products cannot scale.
The role of standards and coordination
As multiple instruments compete to define the base rate, consistency is critical.
This is not only a market issue but also a coordination challenge.
Institutions cannot allocate at scale without shared standards, interoperable infrastructure, and aligned system design.
The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance addresses this by coordinating enterprises, defining standards, and enabling institutional Ethereum in production.
What this means for institutional Ethereum
The question is no longer if capital will move onchain. The focus is now on how capital will be allocated across competing infrastructure layers. Yield alone will not determine the outcome.
What matters is:
- reliability,
- integration,
- standards,
- and institutional fit.
The Enterprise Ethereum Alliance brings together asset managers, banks, infrastructure providers, and protocol teams to define the standards enabling this transition.