Yearnvaults
Yearnvaults strategies connect yield sources with different vault designs
Yearnvaults strategies generate yield through specific protocol positions, while vault design determines how those strategies receive and manage deposits. Comparing them means separating the underlying asset, reward source, allocation controls, fee logic, and exit conditions. A v2 strategy belongs to one vault; a v3 Tokenized Strategy can accept deposits directly.
The underlying position and its yield source
A strategy's external position determines where its yield originates and which protocol risks accompany that yield. Its logic can collect rewards, sell them for the underlying asset, reinvest proceeds, and maintain a position when its design requires those actions. A strategy for a liquidity-provider (LP) token retains exposure to the underlying pool. Compare candidates on their accepted asset, source of earnings, conversion requirements, fee base, and liquidity constraints. Two contracts using the same accounting asset can employ different external positions.
What changes between v2 strategies and v3 Tokenized Strategies?
V2 strategies attach to one vault, while v3 Tokenized Strategies can receive deposits directly and serve multiple vaults. Contract architecture alone does not establish which strategy earns more or carries less risk.
A v2 strategy and its parent vault
A v2 strategy accepts deposits and withdrawals only from its parent vault. A v2 vault can support up to 20 strategies, each with a capital cap. That capacity describes the vault architecture; a particular vault need not use every available strategy slot. V2 vaults remain relevant to LP positions, while v3 has largely superseded them for single-asset vaults.
A v3 strategy as a standalone vault
Yearn v3 Tokenized Strategies implement the ERC-4626 vault interface. Individual depositors and allocator vaults can hold shares in the same strategy. The strategy still targets one external yield source. An allocator supplies another layer that can distribute its underlying asset across several compatible strategies.
Curve, Convex, and Frax reward paths
V2 Curve factory strategies use different staking routes for the vault's Curve LP token. Their configured strategies and pool eligibility determine which reward paths apply. The factory design supports up to three ready-made strategies, with the Frax branch conditional on additional eligibility.
StrategyCurveBoostedFactory and veCRV
StrategyCurveBoostedFactory uses Yearn's veCRV balance to boost CRV rewards on deposited Curve LP tokens. The Curve factory described for Ethereum targets pools with active gauges, which enable CRV emissions. The maximum 2.5x boost applies to CRV rewards; it does not multiply the LP position's total yield.
StrategyConvexFactory and Convex
StrategyConvexFactory routes additional Curve LP tokens through Convex when the Curve strategy cannot give them the maximum boost. Its documented reward sources include CRV and CVX. Both routes retain the same Curve pool exposure, even though their staking layers differ.
StrategyConvexFraxFactory eligibility
Within the v2 factory design, StrategyConvexFraxFactory applies only to Curve LP tokens that support staking through Convex for Frax. This branch replaces the standard Convex strategy and specifies FXS rewards alongside CRV and CVX. The pool's active incentives determine whether that reward combination remains available.
Velodrome, Aerodrome, and Balancer LP strategies
The documented v2 factory integrations connect Velodrome V2 on Optimism and Aerodrome V2 on Base with their respective emissions. The Velodrome strategy collects VELO, while the Aerodrome strategy collects AERO. Each sells those rewards for the relevant LP token and compounds the position. Their factory harvests are permissioned and keeper-operated, unlike the Curve factory's permissionless harvest step.
Balancer factory vaults use StrategyAuraFactory to earn through Aura's rewards program. This route retains Balancer pool exposure and adds the external reward system that the strategy uses. Across these options, the pool assets determine the underlying market exposure. Reward-token prices and the conversion back into LP tokens affect the earnings that the strategy can reinvest.
Allocation decisions and management permissions
An allocator vault controls exposure through its configured strategies and debt allocations, with designated roles managing those settings.
Debt here means the underlying asset that an allocator has supplied to a strategy. The term describes capital allocation within the vault.
Strategy admission and capital limits
An added strategy begins with maximum debt set to zero in the v3 allocator management flow. A manager must set a positive cap before allocating capital. Debt updates respect the strategy's deposit and redemption limits and the vault's idle-asset requirement. A strategy's presence in a list therefore does not establish that it currently receives funds.
Shared access and external dependencies
V3 allocators can hold Tokenized Strategies, compatible third-party ERC-4626 vaults, or other allocators that accept the same underlying asset. A standard interface supports integration; the actual implementation determines how each position behaves. Additional contract layers can introduce further management and protocol dependencies.
An allocator's effective exposures can change as its managers rebalance. Direct strategy deposits avoid that allocator-level redistribution across sources, while retaining the selected strategy's own management and external-protocol risks.
Why can similar APYs reflect different strategies?
Similar APYs can summarize different reward streams, valuation methods, and reporting periods. LP strategies can combine pool earnings with incentive tokens whose prices affect returns. Yearn distinguishes Curve LP calculations from non-Curve calculations, so a displayed rate does not establish a matching risk profile. Net APY includes vault fees and compounding, while gross APR precedes fee deductions. Compare rates with the same asset basis and reporting context; a historical annualized estimate cannot fix the return over a different holding period.
Harvest permissions and fee bases
Harvest timing follows a strategy's execution model, and fee comparisons require the correct profit or asset base. Traditional v2 strategies can combine reward conversion and debt rebalancing in one harvest transaction. The Curve factory model separates swaps from harvests: authorized swaps convert accumulated rewards, and a later harvest recognizes profit. Permissionless harvesting in this factory model does not make its swap step permissionless. V3 Tokenized Strategy reports require an authorized caller, such as management or the configured keeper. Each strategy's harvest-and-report logic determines the reward sales, reinvestment, and position maintenance that its report performs.
The documented v2 factory schedule has a 0% management fee. That v2 factory schedule charges a performance fee of 10% of harvest profits. Those figures describe the documented factory model; each candidate's applicable fee settings govern its actual charge. V3 comparisons require the chosen contracts' fee configuration. A Tokenized Strategy can charge a performance fee, and an allocator's optional Accountant can apply its own fee logic. An annual management fee, where applicable, accrues against deposited assets over time. Network gas and conversion costs remain separate from a vault's performance-fee percentage.
A direct strategy deposit and an allocator fee layer
In this hypothetical comparison, a depositor wants one selected v3 Tokenized Strategy and accepts an allocator fee only for additional strategy exposure. The strategy accepts direct deposits. The candidate allocator allocates only to that same strategy and has an Accountant that charges a performance fee.
The depositor expects an allocator charge to accompany another desired strategy. The allocator's observed configuration provides no additional source, yet includes another fee-bearing component. The performance charge depends on the allocator's reported gain and configured fee logic. The underlying strategy's fee settings and transaction costs also remain relevant, so comparing headline percentages would not establish the total cost.
The allocator fails the depositor's condition and drops out before any deposit. The direct route remains a candidate subject to its actual limits and strategy settings. Adding another desired strategy or removing the allocator charge would change the comparison. Closing direct deposits would remove the direct route without making the allocator satisfy the original condition.
Exit liquidity and maturity-dependent pricing
Strategy choice also determines how a position unwinds, including liquidity restrictions and maturity-related pricing. V3 withdrawal-limit modules and strategy-level limits can constrain access even when a depositor holds shares. A displayed asset estimate therefore does not establish that the full balance is currently withdrawable. These limits differ from a performance fee, although both affect the comparison.
Pendle-based yPT vaults add a distinct timing consideration. They automatically roll positions into the next term, while an exit far from the underlying strategy's maturity can receive an unfavorable price. This exposure differs from collecting and reinvesting LP incentives. The remaining decision is whether each candidate's underlying position and exit terms fit the intended holding period.
Yearnvaults strategies: what people ask
Who receives a v3 Tokenized Strategy's protocol fee?
The protocol fee is a share of the strategy's performance fees. Its recipient is configurable through the applicable VaultFactory, with Yearn's documented setup directing it to the Yearn Treasury. Applying that rate to the entire deposited balance would use the wrong base. The strategy's performance-fee setting and the applicable VaultFactory's protocol-fee configuration determine the charge.
What does a keeper's tend call change between strategy reports?
The tend call lets authorized management or keepers perform maintenance between reports without requiring a full report. The strategy implementation determines which maintenance belongs there. A tend operation does not itself establish that the strategy has reported fresh profit, charged reporting fees, or started a new profit-unlocking period.
Can a v3 Tokenized Strategy limit deposits to approved recipients?
A v3 Tokenized Strategy can restrict share recipients through its availableDepositLimit implementation. That function receives the address that will receive minted shares, so a whitelist can apply to that recipient. Its logic can also reflect deposit caps or the external protocol's status. Permissionless deployment of the framework does not establish unrestricted deposits into each deployed strategy.
Which token behaviors can make an asset unsuitable for a v3 allocator?
Rebasing tokens, fee-on-transfer tokens, and ERC-777 tokens appear among the documented assets to avoid as v3 vault underlyings. Their behavior can conflict with the vault's assumptions about its underlying asset. A strategy comparison must distinguish compatibility with the vault framework from compatibility with an external yield protocol; support at one layer does not establish support at both.
Does a strategy report update every allocator that holds it?
An allocator records a strategy's gains or losses through its own process_report operation. That accounting step differs from the Tokenized Strategy's report function. Each allocator's reporting configuration and profit-unlocking settings matter separately. A strategy report alone does not establish that every connected allocator has completed its own accounting, even when they hold the same strategy shares.
Is a v3 strategy's reporting logic available after shutdown?
Authorized callers can still run a v3 Tokenized Strategy's harvest-and-report logic after shutdown. The strategy implementation needs shutdown checks wherever a report could redeploy idle funds. Its accounting still needs to cover deployed and idle assets.
How does a v3 strategy identify the amount it must free for a withdrawal?
The _freeFunds hook runs when idle assets cannot cover a withdrawal; its _amount argument specifies the additional underlying assets to release. The framework has already counted idle assets, so _amount excludes that portion. A shortfall counts as withdrawal loss. The maxLoss tolerance, expressed in basis points, makes the transaction revert if that loss exceeds the accepted threshold.
Why does a v3 strategy need a trusted valuation of deployed and idle assets?
An incorrect valuation can cause a v3 Tokenized Strategy to report incorrect profit, loss, and fees. Its harvest-and-report function must return a trusted total in the underlying asset, including idle and deployed funds. For an allocator, manipulated convertToAssets values can likewise corrupt strategy reporting. A shared interface does not supply valuation accuracy.