I'm assuming this is mostly rage-baiting hyperbole, but it's still worth drawing the distinction here, especially given how new onchain vault products are and how few people have actually looked under the hood.
The hedge fund comparison breaks down at the part that actually matters, which is custody. A fund manager holds your assets and moves them around at their own discretion. A Morpho vault curator never touches the deposits at all. The smart contract holds the funds, the protocol enforces the rules, and the curator only sets parameters. We could disappear tomorrow and your money would sit exactly where it is, governed by code anyone can read.
And it goes further than custody. The Guardian role on our
@SteakhouseFi vaults isn't us, it's the depositors, all of them in aggregate. If Steakhouse proposes adding a new collateral, any depositor can start a vote to veto it, and we set the quorum deliberately low so it only takes a small fraction of them to block it. Nothing gets slipped in behind your back. New collateral sits behind a timelock, so if you don't like what's coming you can either help vote it down or just withdraw before it ever goes live. You would have to wait until the next investor update to learn about mandate drift in a hedge fund. Here you get a vote and an exit before anything changes.
What curators configure is asset backed lending, with transparent and strongly enforced constraints. Every position is a loan against posted collateral, with a published liquidation loan to value, a named oracle, a defined rate model, and hard supply caps. It's hardly a black box though I concede it can be hard to parse and compare. It is, however, evidently not opaque.
Compare that honestly to a credit hedge fund. There you get a quarterly letter, marks you can't independently verify, concentration you can't see, unilateral discretion, and a manager who is literally holding your money. With a vault you get every loan, every allocation, every realized loss, and every fee, live, queryable by anyone, enforced by code instead of promised in a pitch deck. It's not less transparent than a fund. It's dramatically more.
You are right that the data can be scattered and that nobody has fully packaged it yet. That is absolutely a frontend and user experience problem. We also believe it is eminently fixable and our philosophy is to show our work and maximize the constraints we operate our vaults with.
The reason we build onchain is to put more transparency into a system that has spent decades getting good at the opposite. We're not perfect and there's considerably more that needs to be done to achieve that, but we believe we're on the right trajectory.
If you really think about it, vaults are effectively hedge funds run by curators
> Users deposit capital -> receive vault shares -> curators allocate funds and charge mgmt fees on AUM and carry on returns...sounds like a fund product to me
> I’m all for simplifying defi, but nuts that protocols present these products on their frontends to users without any of the disclosure you’d expect from a manager stewarding billions: track record, realized losses, methodology, conflicts of interest, etc.
> Fwiw most curators are good actors offering valuable services, but the fact that users need to sleuth on-chain and hunt down scattered info to diligence a product presented as a "vault" feels like a giant landmine hidden in plain sight