Used for Lagoon’s top-level framing as ERC-7540-based onchain fund infrastructure with non-custodial strategy operation, NAV computation, role-based access control, fee management, and reporting
Used to confirm the request → valuation → settlement → claim lifecycle, async-by-default dealing flow, role separation, guardrails, and access-control modes
Used to confirm the transparent proxy + delay mechanism + protocol-registry allowlist design, plus the split between vault operations and upgrade authority
Used to confirm the silo contract, ERC-20 share representation, protocol-level fee-switch description, cross-chain-strategy framing, and the statement that Lagoon remains the only entity capable of deploying vault upgrades
Used to confirm multi-release audit history and reviewed-release cadence through v0.6.0
Key takeaways from primary sources
Lagoon’s main contribution is not merely tokenized funds, but a reusable operating system for async fund dealing onchain. The architecture page makes the request / valuation / settlement / claim cycle explicit and ties it to ERC-7540 rather than ordinary instant-deposit vault semantics.
The protocol’s most useful analytical feature is role separation. Strategy discretion, investor gating, valuation, safety policy, and upgrade management are all separated instead of being flattened into a single manager key.
The curator role is the clearest source of investment discretion: it allocates capital, validates valuation proposals, and chooses when pending requests settle. That makes settlement timing itself part of fund governance.
The vault-admin role governs a separate but equally important control plane: pausing, role reassignment, access-mode changes, fee parameters, async-only mode, and vault closure.
The opt-in proxy docs are especially revealing. Lagoon inserts a ProtocolRegistry allowlist between a vault’s upgrade authority and new implementations, then adds a configurable delay window. This creates a layered upgrade model rather than simple admin mutability.
The FAQ preserves an important caveat: Lagoon says it is the only entity capable of deploying vault upgrades, even though each vault’s own upgrade authority controls enforcement. That means implementation choice is not fully open-ended today.
The access-control design is substantial enough to matter for corpus comparisons. Lagoon treats whitelist / blacklist / sanctions integration as a first-class role and policy surface, not just a frontend UX feature.
Specific source signals worth retaining
The architecture overview is the best source for the async settlement mechanism and for why NAV timing, rather than request time, determines share pricing.
The role pages are the best source for identifying where practical authority really sits once vault branding is stripped away.
The upgradability page is the best source for the registry-gated opt-in upgrade model and for the separation between vault admin and upgrade authority.
The FAQ is the best source for the protocol-level caveat around who can deploy upgrades and for the high-level vault components like the silo contract.
The audits page is the cleanest maturity check and helps avoid treating Lagoon as a purely speculative design.
Why this entry belongs in the corpus
It gives the corpus a sharper onchain fund operating system comparison point than generic tokenized-fund or RWA labels.
It separates async dealing, valuation governance, investor admission, and upgrade control into reusable analytical layers.
The durable insight is that tokenized-fund infrastructure can decentralize custody while still concentrating pricing cadence, investor eligibility, and upgrade-authority policy in distinct operator roles.