---
date: 2026-05-22T12:00:00Z
header_image: "../../images/blog/openqna1/cover.png"
short_description: "Look back at Beefy's first Open Q&A, with candid answers from core contributors on DeFi's future, Beefy's performance and the BIFI token."
sub_header: "Beefy Open Q&A (H1 2026)"
title: "Beefy Open Q&A (H1 2026)"
tags: [governance, products]
---

![](../../images/blog/openqna1/cover.png)

On 22 May 2026, we hosted Beefy's first Open Q&A event on the [Beefy Discord Server](https://beefy.finance/discord). The event was a chance for Beefy's users and cowmoonity to talk openly with the contributor team, discuss their questions and ideas, and give feedback on Beefy's performance and plans.

Users were provided with a polling tool to submit their questions and conversation topics, which are reproduced below alongside their verbatim answers. A recording of the session has also been made available on [YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WS8o0DtOmMI).

Keen to take part in the next session? Or have questions you want answered? Head to the #-general channel on the [Beefy Discord Server](https://beefy.finance/discord) to find out about future events.

## Team

### 1. [KK] How many developers are working for Beefy?

**Jack:**

> So Beefy is interesting because we have so many different layers of contributors. We have full-time core people who are putting their all into this. And then we have people who are contributing more loosely, maybe involved with some other projects, some of them part of the core team and some of them external to the core team as sort of strategists or other roles like moderators. So right now the core team has 16 members. I think about 14 of those are full-time and of those probably about 9 or 10 are developers.
>
> So we're quite developer heavy within the core team. Then beyond that we have a further three additional moderators. A lot of the core team helps with moderation as well. And we have maybe four or five different strategists who show up from time to time to contribute. So all told Beefy stretches from about 20 to 25 people rotating their contributions.

## BIFI Token

### 2. [BIFI MOO] Should the DAO become the largest holder of BIFI? Could big acquisitions create a flywheel of upward pressure on the BIFI price?

**Jack:**

> We're definitely one of the largest holders of BIFI already. The amount oscillates constantly because quite a bit of it is deployed as liquidity. But I think last time we checked, it was around 6,000 to 7,000 BIFI. So getting close to 10% of supply being held in the treasury. Some of that is non-circulating, so not really being put to any use.
>
> And some of it is in use as liquidity or some other minor use cases that we have. But in general, we already have quite a significant amount of BIFI. And the market hasn't really reacted to that fact significantly. There's not a lot of people who do the research on circulating supply and say, OK, well, there's 80K BIFI, but actually only 73K of it is actually circulating. So the problem I have with this idea of why doesn't the DAO just keep buying more BIFI?
>
> Big acquisitions creating flywheels, creating supply pressure. I just think it relies on a lot of assumptions about how the market is going to react to those events. And the market is often so detached from the underlying economics that we could spend so much of the treasury trying to acquire BIFI and end up in a position where holders don't really realize it, but they do see that our Treasury number has gone down and wonder if their BIFI is worth less as a result. So it's a nice theory, but I think in practice it's not especially doable.

## Vision / Strategy

### 3. [A] What is Beefy’s long-term vision in the next DeFi cycle: remaining primarily a yield optimizer, or evolving into a broader access layer for onchain finance?

**Jack:**

> I think a lot of people still use this just a yield optimizer tag and mistake what we're doing now for being exactly the same as when we launched in 2020. Beefy has definitely expanded over those years. And I would say we've moved to add more vertical integrations into what we do. So the biggest example of that is our CLM products. Concentrated liquidity can be much more effective in terms of generating returns, but it requires very careful management.
>
> And we sat back and observed a lot of different liquidity management protocols and finally came to the conclusion that we could do a great job of this ourselves and it would dovetail well with our traditional yield optimizer background. And over the past couple of years, concentrated liquidity has made up, if not the majority, then definitely a very large chunk of our total revenue. So that was definitely a step away from simple yield optimization towards full stack liquidity management. And thinking about that as a vertical stack, you've got compounding incentives on the top, you've got managing liquidity in the middle layer. I think the next layer down of that would be hosting that liquidity.
>
> And that's something that Uniswap v4 really opens the door to. We haven't launched anything with Uniswap v4 as yet. But as with Uniswap v3 and concentrated liquidity, we're always sat back watching. But definitely that vertical model of expanding what we do is more of interest than something like the access layer for on-chain finance, which is a really, really broad term. It suggests that you're going to be stretched across the whole market offering everything.
>
> I think I always think of it as if you don't stand for anything in particular, you're probably going to fall for everything. So we try and really make clear what we stand for. And have a very clear product identity.

### 4. [A] How does Beefy evaluate new metas, narratives and sectors in crypto? Which areas are currently the most interesting strategically?

**Jack:**

> There's been so many metas over the last five years, almost six years of our existence. I think if we jumped onto every single one, we would have blown up maybe three or four times already. Just thinking back, what have we had? Airdrops, point campaigns, launching your own perp DEXes or leverage into your system. There's been so many more than that as well.
>
> Exactly. And no shame on that gamification. We definitely integrate with a lot of partners who are doing that. So Points, for example, we had at one stage dozens of different partners running Points programs, and all of them were integrating Beefy users because we built that connection with them. But at the same time, that didn't tempt us to go and launch our own Points program or change what we do.
>
> I think our view is agnostic to trends and to new metas. We'll embrace them. We definitely want the economic activity that they create, but we're not going to change our strategy to go and chase after something new and shiny when we think what we already have works in the right conditions. So not a big chase for new narratives. We had a bit of an inflection point for existing narratives.
>
> I would say around the end of last year, there was a lot of emphasis on safer, traditional, simple DeFi products. But then the implosion of multiple lending markets from the Kelp hack, from the Resolv hack, from Stream, all of those situations have changed that dynamic a lot. And I think people are being more cautious than ever and looking for options that are safer than ever. So we're definitely in 2026 leaning into more safety around our products and better risk management practices. But I think people have lent away from the meta of 2025 as a result.
>
> And definitely we haven't seen a lot of focus on things like points and NFTs other gamification. I'm sure it'll come back at some stage though.

**GPMS:**

> Also, I think the stablecoin narrative began this year, but it's going to be a long way. We're also seeing a lot of specialized stablecoin chains, I would say. Tempo, Arc, which is the Circle chain that still hasn't launched, but is on track to launch this year. Our products that are going to focus on basically stablecoins and yield and form of payments around different stablecoins. So I think that should be a point of focus going forward.
>
> Talking about that we have been in conversation with Circle to launch in their new chain once it's live. Also, that's something that our users can expect, I would say, throughout this year.

### 5. [A] How does Beefy decide which chains and ecosystems are strategically worth supporting long term, especially with increasing fragmentation? Is the future truly multichain, or will liquidity and users consolidate around fewer dominant ecosystems?

**GPMS:**

> On the chain side, we like to work with ecosystems that have strong DeFi foundations, I could say. And because obviously as we know, Beefy is a protocol that deploys on top of already existing DeFi infrastructure. It could be lending protocols, liquidity pools, DEXs as a whole. So it's obviously very important for us to have a strong DeFi validation so we can basically have a lot of products in that specific chain. Also, the TVL is very important, the DeFi TVL specifically.
>
> Actually, we have requirements for chain, like bridges, oracles, a lot of interesting infrastructure that we need to deploy and be able to securely manage Beefy in it.
>
> In my opinion, the market already has a lot of fragmentation. Back in the day, you had mainnet, which was the Ethereum chain, and BNB Chain, Binance chain. Everyone who traded, launched tokens and did whatever was in one of those chains. Obviously, BNB Chain came as a solution for people who didn't have a lot of money to transact because it was pretty costly back in those days. But now you have a hundred different chains.
>
> There's a lot of fragmentation going on. Even us, we are in 28 chains right now. Each chain has their own community, their own focus. So I would think the future is obviously multi-chain because it's already there. But I think maybe each protocol will have their own chain like Hyperliquid did that has its own community, its own chain that revolves around the main protocol.
>
> With other protocols, obviously, supporting their token via DeFi activities, like HyperEVM, which we're also part of. And Arc, which I just mentioned, Circle, obviously, is going to focus on USDC in that specific chain. They'll have their Arc token. So my guess is they will build everything around, obviously, their own stablecoin and... Have protocols support their tokens by DeFi activities like lending, liquidity, form of payments, and those different things.
>
> So yes, I think it's going to be multi-chain because it already is. But every chain will have a specific focus on their community. And those ones who are general chains, I don't think we need more than those.

## Partnerships

### 6. [A] What partnerships does Beefy want to focus on going forward: infrastructure partners, chains, protocols, wallets, frontends, institutional platforms, or something else?

**GPMS:**

> We like to focus on a lot of different angles that we could offer to our community and our partners. We have been integrating several wallets. From the top of my head, the latest one was Base. So we got integrated into Base Wallet as a, inside the wallet to people to be able to use Beefy in that. And we take that...
>
> It's pretty important to us because it gives you a space to be able on the top of mind of the user. And we have worked with a lot of chains lately. We have worked with Monad with Optimism and different protocols as the latest one was PancakeSwap. Obviously, we want to focus on things that gives us the most revenue. Also thinking about the security that we are used to, the standard security that we are used to.
>
> But I would say all partnerships are good. We have been approached also by institutions, by protocol treasuries. And all those things. So I would say we're pretty much a protocol that has a lot of angles to be able to participate in a partnership with another chain or another protocol.

### 7. [A] In partnerships, what role does Beefy ideally want to occupy: a neutral yield layer, distribution partner, liquidity hub, or strategic ecosystem growth partner?

**GPMS:**

> In that sense, I would say multiple. Basically, a neutral yield layer is what most of the people have super present that we are because we deploy on top of other protocols and basically auto-compound the rewards. So our goal is for people to basically deposit their liquidity through us and chill, be able to chill. And we basically... Auto-compound the gains and just you don't have to be on top of the screen 24-7.
>
> So that's in that part. As a distribution partner, we also have good avenues to do that. We have been in... Campaigns, as I mentioned in the past question, with Arbitrum in the past, with Monad, with Optimism, and with different protocols that we have been a distribution partner for rewards that they want to focus specifically on a pool or specifically their community. We have what is called boost programs that I'm pretty sure all the users know how it works.
>
> So that's a distribution layer that we also have an offer to our partners. As a liquidity hub, I would say... We have been also a pretty important partner for protocols to deposit their protocol's liquidity into the CLM. Because it basically maximizes the usage and the spread throughout the pool for people to be able to swap more. So we have been and we have the infrastructure to be able to do a lot of things with only one partner and that is Beefy.

**Jack:**

> I think people like to shepherd liquidity into one or two categories. One is a very niche, specialized, focused operator, provider, infrastructure layer for liquidity. And the other is being this very broad, very general liquidity hub concept. And so I think when people try and shepherd us into those two groups, it breaks down a little bit because Beefy has a thousand different strategies, dozens of chains. And so you look at us and you say, well, we're extremely broad.
>
> But actually, what Beefy is doing with that liquidity is quite specific and quite narrow. People wanting to build out their liquidity come to Beefy as an option, often to complement existing pool designs or lending markets. And we can do a lot of different things to help them. But we are not trying to be a one-stop shop where we do everything. Instead, we're providing quite a tailored specific service of liquidity management and compounding incentives.
>
> So I definitely think it's best to avoid sticking too closely to these labels and expanding your view a bit with Beefy as something that does something very specific, but can do it in such a broad number of ways alongside our partners.

### 8. [A] Are there specific types of protocols or ecosystems Beefy believes are especially synergistic for deeper long-term collaboration?

**GPMS:**

> On the on the protocol side, obviously what we have been in the past and I would say it's the same as now. DEXs and lending protocols are for sure our more long-term type of collaboration because we are a very easy and important part on basically getting a retail user that might not be so expert into, I would say, complicated, sometimes complicated protocols. On the ecosystem side, I would say... We have currently a lot of chain partners. We are part of a lot of ecosystems.
>
> The last one would be MegaETH, which we were part of their Terminal Program, which was terminated early, but we have a lot of chain partners. Those types of partnerships are the ones that make different ecosystem growth. And that's basically how Beefy can help to attract people to chains and to specific protocols.

**Jack:**

> We evolved a bit, I'd say as well, GPMS. Because looking back at the last time we had one of these conversations in 2023, we had such a broad range of chains. We were having dozens and dozens of chains. And every year we were focusing on integrating six to eight new chains. And that multi-chain yield optimizer strategy has done really well for us and seen us a long way.
>
> But I would definitely say these days we have much stronger, deeper partnerships and integrations. A lot of the ecosystems that are coming to us and want us to build on them. We're thinking about is there going to be a proper incentive program here that suits Beefy? Or is this going to be something where we deploy and then nothing ever gets compounded and there's not really a huge amount to do on the chain? So things like MegaETH are great because they're bringing in big token launch.
>
> They're wanting to actively get people involved in different applications. But I think maybe we've evolved a bit since the early days of... Doing tons and tons of chains all the time.

## Risk Management

### 9. [A] How does Beefy balance high-yield opportunities and potentially risky investments in an increasingly competitive DeFi market, where high yields attract TVL easily?

**Jack:**

> I think Beefy's been on a bit of a journey with this as well, same as the industry. In the early days, we had a lot of different people just loving the auto compounding technology and saying, we want this protocol, we want this token, and even people who would show up and do it themselves. And so we had so many, such a variety of different things on Beefy, including crazy yields, including crazy assets, but also including blue chips and classic ones as well. And over time, we found that the former category, the more wild side of what we had to offer, would really ebb and flow and change over time. Whereas the blue chip side really holds steady.
>
> It might move from older product designs to new product designs, but you'll tend to find some of the same names at the higher end in terms of our TVL share all throughout our history. And that's just the nature, I think, of our users and users are consolidating now more than ever, I think, in those blue chip assets and stable coins. But Beefy is not looking at that and saying, well, we need to throw out the old strategy entirely. We need to really cut down on the number of products. We really need to focus in on just being safe and simple and stable and boring.
>
> We always focus on being safe, but we want to still be able to offer the full variety of experiences to our users. And so when we're going to new chains like MegaETH recently, for example, obviously we were paying close attention to the big pairs for stable coins and blue chips put together that are really important for liquidity on the chain. But we were also looking at local projects setting up for the first time on the chain, deploying their own token, meme coins, and all of them have a place still within Beefy. That's our overarching philosophy. But I think when it comes to strategic importance, the biggest revenue drivers right now are what we're really focusing on.
>
> And they are quite specific. We're not spending a ton of time on lending protocols that are paying out 3%, 4%, 5% on stables or 1% to 3% on ETH and nothing on Bitcoin. There's no revenue there for us, just TVL that's not doing a lot. So we'll offer those products and we'll maintain them. But then when we're thinking about developing new products or looking for more incentives, we're really trying to focus on the things that will generate alpha, additional yield beyond what you can get in the market.
>
> And that's our CLM product, but it's also things like specialized Curve pools on Ethereum are really, really popular and aggregation layers on top of that. And then also going to these ecosystems like Monad and MegaETH and compounding their native tokens and their incentives as well. So still very broad, but definitely focused on what generates revenue.

### 10. [DREAM] In the event of an exploit or major hack, could Beefy integrate a Panic Mode trigger or circuit breaker? Would it be technically possible to protect users by automatically unwinding all positions?

**Jack:**

> And the first thing to say is that whenever there is a reason to get out of a vault to exit, we will panic it immediately. We will withdraw all of those funds back to the vault so that users can withdraw. And we won't hesitate. If there's doubt there, we want to protect users' funds first and foremost. This question, I think, is more about those interim situations or in-between situations where we can't necessarily withdraw everything immediately.
>
> But there might be actions that we can take. So that could be where markets don't have sufficient liquidity for a full withdrawal, but we could do a partial withdrawal. Or it could be situations where new liquidity emerges over time and where they're trying to snipe it and pull it back. And my general view on that is sounds fantastic in theory, but the actual implementation of it is very technical. Each protocol that we're dealing with has separate ways that they deal with things like liquidations and liquidity being returned.
>
> And so we would need to design mechanisms to suit each of those behaviors. And what's more, we would need to operate them safely. So if you're conducting a partial withdrawal, you need to be able to tell the protocol what you're withdrawing and how much you're expecting to get back for it. And a single mistake there could end up losing more money than just waiting to get the funds out. Now, I'm not saying that we would make mistakes, but what I will say is the more complexity we add to this process, the more likely it is that something can go awry and not happen like we want it to.
>
> Whereas our current mechanism of just panic as soon as there's any doubt, that has saved a ton of money over the years and it's something that we stand very firmly by.

**Stakius:**

> I think it's also if we use the panic function as we do now, it's a very black and white decision. You do or you do not panic, but if we have mechanisms that automate things and those mechanisms withdraw funds when it wasn't needed and people lose money, then it's definitely our fault. We did something actively to make people lose money and I think this also is a very tricky situation to deal with.

**Jack:**

> The number one thing with being safe is not making mistakes. And these things just open up the doors to mistakes.

## Insurance Fund

### 11. [DREAM] Could Beefy lock part of the treasury for a built-in insurance fund, similar to the Aave Umbrella program?

**Jack:**

> They have a module as part of their program where part of the funds are directed and users are incentivized to contribute. And then the idea is those funds are kept safely in case anything happens and they can be distributed to cover losses. We saw a lot of discussion about this recently with the Kelp hack because the amount of losses far exceeded the umbrella. So everyone was like, well, what was the point in that? We would just drain the umbrella and people wouldn't get it all back.
>
> And in the end, they ended up filling that hole in other means. And that I think, leads into our view on insurance fund products. Obviously, we had BSP04 back in maybe February now or January, which was to explore introducing protocol-wide coverage together with Nexus Mutual. That was a slightly different proposal focused on working with an external partner, whereas I think what this question is getting at is Beefy basically offering its own insurance fund. And its own insurance product from our treasury.
>
> I think it's dangerous and not a great idea because our treasury is so much smaller than our total TVL. So if you agree to backstop a certain amount of loss, there's a pretty good chance that that total amount of loss could happen within the course of the next year, two years, eventually. Particularly in situations where we aren't actually the ones at fault, but there's something like a stablecoin blowing up like we saw with Stream or Resolv, and our users are left in between. And if we just drain that treasury as soon as that happens, we end up in a situation where the project can't really continue to fund itself and operate, and a few users walk away happier, but everybody else has to suffer for it. The great advantage with the Nexus proposal is that we don't underwrite that risk.
>
> We don't bear that on our balance sheet. Instead, we pay out a bit of revenue every month, and we get a consistent rolling amount of coverage, and that coverage wouldn't cover all of our TVL, but there's a good chance that it would cover most of the individual exploits that we might have some user exposure to. Meaning that we don't lose our whole financial future just because of one of those situations, but we do provide some level of recovery for the users. So to be honest, I'm all in still on BSP04. I think it's the right directional decision for us, but it's something where we need to have the time to implement it properly and the funding to implement it properly.
>
> And so for right now, it's still on pause. Otherwise for me it's sadly a no to built-in insurance fund operated by Beefy.

## UX / UI

### 12. [A] Crosschain Zaps significantly improve UX. Does Beefy see simplifying DeFi UX as one of its biggest strategic advantages?

**Jack:**

> We've had an update merged overnight, which has enhanced the range of our existing cross-chain zaps. I won't say a ton about it, but for anyone who's listening, it's worth checking the Beefy app and looking at how you can move around your positions at the moment, because this is evolving really rapidly. We do see it as a big advantage that Beefy has and something that we do so much better than a lot of the industry. We see a lot of partners who are really struggling to create the simple UX that Beefy has. But I wouldn't say that simplifying DeFi UX is the biggest or the only strategic advantage that Beefy has.
>
> We have a phenomenal brand. We have an incredible team, a network of partners, a community who really stands behind us in the good and in the bad. And we have a ton of experience and expertise across the team, the contributors and also the community. And when you stack all of those things together, we've created something that really has stuck and has lasting power. Where just having really fancy UX for a new project won't necessarily lead to all of those things.
>
> I'd say to do this well, you need to do a lot of small things really well consistently over a long period of time. And Beefy's done that. That's the secret sauce. That's our success.

### 13. [BIBI MOO] Will Beefy consider streamlining the website by stacking similar assets, making it easier to use and elevating the experience?

**Jack:**

> We've got over a thousand different rows of products on the UI at the moment. So it's a lot and empathize with anyone who comes to the site and doesn't know anything about what they're looking for. It is a lot to look through to make good decisions. We have had talks internally about some things that we can do to consolidate, where there's two halves of the same product that could just go onto one page rather than two. That's an easy win where we could shrink 100 lines off of the grid.
>
> But we've managed to retain a really simple and intuitive feel. And I think a lot of the people who are really seasoned at using Beefy know that the real value of our UI is not scrolling through thousands of options, but it's the power of our search, the power of our navigational components that allow you to quite easily move from one thing to another. So one example of that is we have banners that appear whenever a product is being retired or removed from the UI, which will point to other options that are useful. So rather than just relying on the user to go back through and assess all of the thousand options again, we're always trying to help them get to that decision quicker through a really effective UI. But there's always work to be done there.
>
> So appreciate the feedback from the person who asked this question and we'll definitely keep trying to streamline the UI and make it as simple and as easy to access as possible.

### 14. [KARON] Would Beefy consider listing only one vault for the same pair on the website to ensure the available option is the best?

**Jack:**

> It does change every second. But we used to, I think, have a much stricter, more limited set of options. So we would have hundreds of pairs for a protocol, but we'd try to avoid having the same pair repeated twice. And we still have that as a general rule. But it's funny, we were debating this in the core team over the last few weeks as part of the Aerodrome migration process because whenever a new project is launching, a new chain is launching, or there's some big event like a migration going on, you have lots of different new options popping up all the time with different yields, different rewards, different dynamics.
>
> And we have to make a choice. Either we go with one option that we think is best at the time, hope that we're right, and if we're wrong, then we need to reverse it later and try and ship people from one vault to another. Or we can try and cast the net a bit wider and make sure that we are giving our users the full range of options, even though it becomes a bit more confusing. And in general, for the recent Aerodrome migration, we've tried to strike a bit of a balance by only doing two of the same pair at the same time to try and keep it quite focused. But you've got two new pairs coming in there, you've got an old pair that's being migrated and then you have other options on other platforms as well.
>
> If you look at ETH and USDC pairs on Base right now, you'll probably see about eight different options that you can go into, so it is confusing. And we will also take that as feedback as well. But we always wanna make sure we're offering the best opportunity as well as others that could be the best, rather than just making a decision for you.

### 15. [ANON] How can Beefy become more whale-friendly? Zap price impact was too high on a large deposit.

**Jack:**

> Obviously we don't like to hear that the zap price impact was too high. That's definitely something we're trying to limit wherever possible. Our zap works by aggregating a couple of different aggregators. So it's an aggregator of aggregators. And that means we're fetching quotes from 1inch at the same time that we're fetching from KyberSwap.
>
> And then presenting those to the user to make that best option available. But I think there are situations where liquidity is scarce or where the options being presented by the aggregators isn't that great. And we always are on the side of caution in making sure that our numbers are correct, rather than offering some quote that seems too good to be true and should have probably not been offered because it doesn't materialize. Switching to the specific whale side of this, Beefy has had a lot of whales using the platform throughout our history. And we love our whales much as we love our minnows.
>
> But I think when whales come to us and say, we want a discounted price because we're bringing a certain level of volume, or we want some private access here that other people can't have, we take that on board. It's great that these people want to use us in this way. But at the same time, we're really focused on building a scalable product that works the same across thousands of different people. And it can be upgraded simultaneously all at the same time. The more we start to split off into different branches of "here's a whale themed version", "here's a really small positions version", the more complexity and the worse user experience we're going to introduce for people. 
>
> So in general, we'd always encourage our whales to come and talk to us and we'll take your feedback on. But we're definitely not intending to try and segment Beefy into being more whale friendly only. We want to make sure it does everything all at once and appeals to all different kinds of users.

## Technology

### 16. [A] How is Beefy preparing for Ethereum scalability and UX improvements, such as account abstraction and future rollup upgrades?

**Jack:**

> Beefy definitely is not trying to position ourselves as a leader in every technological development. We're too small and we're trying to be really good at what we do, not spread ourselves across lots of different things. So just the two examples we've got there, scalability, things like upgrades to our roll-ups, making sure that we're proactively taking advantage of bigger block space or changes in the way that blocks are generated. We are constantly paying attention to these kinds of updates. We're needing to update the app to ensure that it operates in line with the parameters of these different chains.
>
> But we're really not trying to be well ahead of that and market ourselves as this really focused on scalability product. The reverse. We want to make sure that Beefy is a consistent experience across all kinds of different chains. And so we're spending time looking at the chains that aren't scaling as fast or that have older technology and trying to make sure that that experience is consistent. Rather than saying to everyone, you should move over to Monad and MegaETH because they've got sub-second block times and all of this amazing technology.
>
> And then leaving behind the people who are still really focused on Ethereum or Binance Smart Chain, BNB Chain. As for UX improvements and account abstraction, some of these technologies are relevant to us. We do integrate lots of different kinds of wallets, for example on the account abstraction side, and we want to make sure that we are continuing to offer access through the latest and greatest technologies. But at the same time, they have no particular connection to the business model that we operate, the revenues that we generate. So we're quite happy to let the latest shiny thing go past and instead wait for something that's really going to make the difference.
>
> Examples of things that really do make the difference for us are upgrades to how liquidity pools work. The introduction of hooks for Uniswap v4 and Balancer V3 was a massive step forward in how liquidity operates and something that we were keen to embrace and get to know immediately and make part of our strategy. So we pick quite carefully.

### 17. [A] What role does Beefy want to play in the broader DeFi infrastructure stack over the next few years: aggregator, distribution layer, middleware, liquidity coordinator, or something else?

**Jack:**

> I spoke a bit earlier about the vertical stack that we're operating where we've moved down from just focusing on compounding rewards to managing liquidity and how there's more layers to that. I guess that direction is pointing towards a full stack solution, where if you're launching some new liquidity or you're launching a new chain and you want to bootstrap things quickly, Beefy is a partner who can make things happen quickly and easily. In that sense, there's a slightly more specialized and slightly sort of middleware purpose to us. But at the same time, so many of these different options that I mentioned there are not exclusive with each other. So yes, we are an aggregator.
>
> We're always going to be focused on bringing together lots of different opportunities and presenting the best ones to our users. Yes, we're a distribution layer. We're really focused on trying to get the incentives from the programs to the users in the simplest and most effective possible route. Yes, we're a liquidity coordinator. We work with partners who really want to bolster their liquidity on chains.
>
> And we explain how to do that in accordance with our best practices and how to use our products to help them. But in terms of the broad DeFi infrastructure stack, a lot of people really harp hard on how they are just infrastructure. They are the plumbing that makes the system work. And I would say that Beefy isn't really following that line of marketing. We're not, we are infrastructure, but that's not our entire focus.
>
> And we do offer a product that's very close to the users and that a lot of users love and stick to. And so we wouldn't say to those users, we're just infrastructure, don't get too attached to us. You should use us in a very neutral fashion. Instead, we are quite happy to be an entry point for users to access all of DeFi rather than just being part of an infrastructure stack.

**Stakius:**

> I think I've always seen Beefy as one of the more human places where you can interact with DeFi. So if you have a problem you can come to our Discord, you can ask questions. The interface of the dApp is very friendly, it's not cryptic, it's making access to a very broad range of chains and protocols very easy. And I think this is maybe even more important to me than knowing what happens behind the scenes, this is something the devs are worried about, but not me as a user.

**Jack:**

> And in an age when so many DeFi projects are shutting off their discords and cutting the user out of the equation and just trying to escape blame for things just by saying we're neutral infrastructure. I think Beefy stands out as one that still cares about community, still cares about having a human face. We're still creating these online spaces that people love to go to. We're still keeping great moderators who make the experience easy. And a lot of users love that and stick with us because of it.
>
> So I don't ever want us to rebrand ourselves as only DeFi infrastructure, nothing more. I think we always want to be a brand that people love and trust.

## Institutional Users

### 18. [A] With institutions increasingly entering crypto, does Beefy see itself building products or infrastructure tailored to professional or institutional users?

**Jack:**

> Well, we should start by saying that we do have institutional users already. We go to conferences and have discussions with large institutions that say, we've had money in Beefy for years. This is a project that we think is great and we're really keen to continue using. And they're not necessarily asking us to uproot what we do and make it entirely different. At the same time, there are institutions that will require more strict enforcement of specific corporate requirements and compliance needs.
>
> And so you can have institutions that come to us and say, we'd love to have a private vault that's KYC with all of your team and that's protected from threats using this integration. And we'll look at it and we'll say, to be honest, we're not going to fundamentally change the way that we operate as a DAO and as a protocol to meet those needs. So I would say that Beefy is fully open to institutional users and we've seen the benefits of institutions entering crypto. We're glad to welcome them in. But at the same time, I don't think Beefy is going to rebrand into an institutional crypto brand at any stage.
>
> And I don't think we're going to be swayed off of our strategy. Just because there's a lot of interest in institutions at the moment, I see it that if institutions are coming in and growing the pie, that's great. But the pie will trickle down and grow across all parts of this industry. And so we don't all need to just jump to institutional users only in order to benefit from that. We don't want to just follow the hype there.
>
> We're the same project that we've always been. We are focused on the great user experience for users of all varieties, of all skill levels, and we don't want to change that. So we're not going to jump on the institutional bandwagon anytime soon.