Reorganizing Omni-Chain Liquidity Provision and Lending Structures through ERC-4626 Vault Aggregation @katana , @superformxyz , @0xSoulProtocol The ERC-4626 vault aggregation serves as a standardized attempt to manage assets scattered across multiple blockchains as a single logical structure, and it is utilized as a significant case to explain the liquidity inefficiency issues that have been repeatedly pointed out in decentralized finance environments. In existing multi-chain environments, each chain and protocol independently stored and managed assets, resulting in a significant portion of funds remaining idle in the form of bridge deposits or waiting assets, and collateral and loans were also separated by chain, making it difficult for users to utilize assets interchangeably unless they moved them. This structure became increasingly complex as the number of chains grew, ultimately revealing structural limitations such as decreased capital utilization rates and increased operational costs. The ERC-4626 standard unifies the vault interface and equity calculation methods in this environment, binding the basic operations of asset deposits, withdrawals, and equity conversions under common rules. This allows vaults using different strategies to be approached in the same way, but it also reveals that vault equities, which may appear identical on the surface, can actually have entirely different characteristics, as the standard does not standardize risk levels or liquidity characteristics. Issues such as equity dilution that can occur in vaults with almost no initial deposit, minor losses arising from integer unit calculations, and structural constraints based on synchronous settlement are known as specific examples that illustrate the limitations of this standard. The attempt to intensively utilize these ERC-4626 vaults in an omni-chain environment is precisely the vault aggregation structure, which is described in research materials as a three-tier structure divided into execution layer, routing layer, and credit abstraction layer. The execution layer, represented by Katana, plays a role in concentrating assets flowing in from multiple chains into Ethereum-based vaults through VaultBridge and placing them in existing lending and yield-generating vaults like Morpho and Yearn. In this process, specialized risk management entities such as Gauntlet and Steakhouse Financial select strategies and reinvest sequencer fees back into the base liquidity pool through chain-owned liquidity structures. This concentrated structure is mentioned as a case that achieves a high activation rate by deploying a significant portion of assets into actual operations. The routing layer, represented by Superform, provides a single representation method called SuperPosition tokens that aggregates ERC-4626 vault equities distributed across different chains. This allows users to access various vault strategies without directly performing cross-chain movements, and during the withdrawal process, multiple requests are bundled together to reduce gas costs. This structure is implemented in the form of asynchronous withdrawals, securing cost efficiency based on explicit processing delays instead of immediate liquidity. This process is managed through a validator-based cross-chain messaging system, and a structure is described where slashing is applied for incorrect actions. The credit abstraction layer, represented by Soul Protocol, aims to integrate positions distributed across various lending protocols such as Aave, Compound, and Morpho into a single health indicator. By utilizing LayerZero-based cross-chain messaging, collateral and debt information is aggregated, allowing users to check their deposit and loan status across multiple chains from a single interface. This structure differentiates itself from existing structures by enabling the use of collateral deposited on one chain for loans on another chain, separating credit judgments from chain boundaries. This omni-chain liquidity provision mechanism is designed around the balance issue between settlement certainty and immediate liquidity. Katana uses the Cork Protocol to establish a separate liquidity buffer, allowing for immediate redemption even when actual yield assets are locked. Superform opts for cost reduction by explicitly accepting processing delays, while Soul Protocol provides a concept of an integrated asset balance sheet but ultimately relies on the certainty of the underlying bridge. Thus, the omni-chain structure operates by wrapping the settlement speed of the underlying chain in another form of abstraction rather than eliminating it. Vault aggregation also brings structural changes in lending and borrowing efficiency. Users can deposit assets on one chain and borrow against them on another chain, managing profit opportunities arising from multiple chains as a single position. At the same time, this structure implies that the liquidation process must occur sequentially across multiple chains, encompassing oracle synchronization issues and time-lag risks due to bridge delays. While efficiency increases, the scope of impact in case of failure also broadens. In terms of risk and failure patterns, each component has different dependencies. Katana relies on the health of Morpho and Yearn vaults and the VaultBridge structure, while Superform is affected by cross-chain messaging security such as LayerZero or Wormhole. Soul Protocol inherits the risks of all external protocols being integrated. In large withdrawal situations, the calculation characteristics of ERC-4626 can accelerate losses, and cross-chain redemptions create sequential settlement dependencies. Some projects provide partial responses through insurance structures like Nexus Mutual or validator slashing, but comprehensive solutions for all failure scenarios have not been presented. Governance and control structures also differ by layer. Katana manages key parameters through chain governance, while Superform implements changes with a time lock for a certain period. In the case of Soul Protocol, publicly available governance information is limited. Commonly, mechanisms for direct user consent regarding strategy changes or routing methods are limited, and emergency stops are typically performed by a multi-signature wallet managed by the team. This creates a structure that maintains an ostensibly non-custodial framework while overlapping several centralized trust layers. In summary, Katana, Superform, and Soul Protocol each share roles of execution, routing, and credit abstraction, presenting a complete structure for utilizing ERC-4626 vaults in an omni-chain environment. Assets are concentrated into Ethereum-based vaults through VaultBridge, inter-chain representation is integrated through SuperPosition tokens, and lending capabilities are aggregated into a single indicator through Soul Protocol. In this process, liquidity moves to where yields are high, and chain boundaries are largely obscured from the user experience perspective. This structure is evaluated as a case showing the shift of focus from chain-centric asset management to vault-centric capital allocation. At the same time, structural limitations such as bridge dependency, expanded risk correlations, and increased governance attack surfaces are also revealed. The omni-chain liquidity provision and lending efficiency model based on ERC-4626 vault aggregation contributes to increasing capital utilization, but its complexity shifts into the system, creating new management challenges, clearly revealing its nature. $KAT $UP $SO $POL