Radiant runs two contract architectures. The technical explanation has been covered. What hasn't: what that split actually means for how capital behaves inside the protocol.

Not all capital has the same risk tolerance. Some allocators want deep liquidity, established assets, predictable behavior. Others want access to newer markets, higher yield potential, contained exposure. A single architecture forces both into the same risk environment. That's a compromise for everyone.

When core and isolated markets run on separate infrastructure, capital can find its actual home. Conservative allocators stay in core: blue chips, shared liquidity, battle-tested parameters. Risk-tolerant capital goes to RIZv2: isolated exposure, bounded downside, faster market availability. Neither side is subsidizing the other's risk.

A problem in a RIZv2 market stays in that market. It doesn't touch core. It doesn't affect depositors who never touched that market. The isolation isn't just architectural; it's a meaningful boundary for how risk propagates.

Segmented infrastructure also means more markets, faster. When isolated markets are fully contained, listing a new asset doesn't require the same due diligence as adding it to a shared pool. The risk is already bounded by design. That changes what's possible in terms of market availability, without changing the risk profile of core.

Two architectures. Two capital profiles. Neither compromised by the other. That's not complexity for its own sake; it's what infrastructure looks like when it's built around how capital actually behaves.