Версия: 3.3.51 Обновлено: 2026-01-23

The Banking Window Concept: Philosophy of Saga¶

Executive Summary: Концепция "банковского окна" — это философская основа Saga. Подобно физическому окну в банке, которое обеспечивает безопасный интерфейс между клиентом и сотрудником, Saga предоставляет secure interface между пользователем и DeFi экосистемой. Окно не хранит секреты, не является custodian — оно обеспечивает transparency, convenience и security через separation of concerns.

🏦 Origins of the Concept¶

The Physical Banking Window¶

Представьте классическое банковское окно 20-го века:

flowchart TB
    subgraph BANK["TRADITIONAL BANK (1950s)"]
        subgraph CLIENT["CLIENT SIDE"]
            C1["👤 Customer"]
            C2["• Sees simple form"]
            C3["• Signs document"]
            C4["• Receives receipt"]
        end

        subgraph WINDOW["THE WINDOW (Bulletproof Glass)"]
            W1["Physical security barrier"]
            W2["Transparent - both can see"]
            W3["Allows document exchange"]
            W4["Prevents unauthorized access"]
        end

        subgraph EMPLOYEE["EMPLOYEE SIDE"]
            E1["💼 Teller"]
            E2["• Accesses complex systems"]
            E3["• Processes transaction"]
            E4["• Has full context"]
        end

        CLIENT <--> WINDOW <--> EMPLOYEE
    end

    style WINDOW fill:#f5f5dc

Key Characteristics:

✅ Security Through Separation: Physical barrier prevents unauthorized access
✅ Asymmetric Complexity: Client sees simplicity, employee has full system access
✅ Transparent Communication: Both sides can see and communicate clearly
✅ Stateless Interface: Window doesn't store money or secrets, just facilitates exchange

Evolution to Digital Banking Window¶

Traditional Digital Banking (2000s-2010s):

❌ Eliminated the "window" → direct customer access to backend systems
❌ Security burden shifted to users (passwords, 2FA, security questions)
❌ Lost asymmetric simplicity (users navigate complex interfaces)

DeFi Platforms (2020s):

❌ Eliminated intermediary entirely → users directly interact with smart contracts
❌ Maximum complexity для end users (gas, slippage, contract addresses)
❌ No professional capital management layer

Saga's Digital Banking Window (2025+):

✅ Recreates the "window" в digital DeFi context
✅ Asymmetric Simplicity Restored: Users see simple interface, operators manage complexity
✅ Security Through Architecture: Non-custodial для users, professional custody для capital management
✅ Transparent Yet Secure: All operations on-chain (transparent) but private keys protected (secure)

Core Philosophy: Separation of Concerns¶

The Three Roles¶

1. The Client (User)

Responsibility: Choose investment strategy, deposit/withdraw funds
Sees: Simple interface (Google/email auth, 3 strategy buttons, balance)
Doesn't See: DeFi complexity (vault addresses, APY volatility, rebalancing)
Trust Model: Trust в architecture (smart contracts audited, transparent on-chain)

2. The Window (Saga Platform)

Responsibility: Secure interface, transaction facilitation, transparency
Doesn't Do: Hold private keys, make investment decisions (operator role), store secrets
Does Do: Authentication (Supabase Auth), routing transactions (smart contracts), displaying information (dashboards)
Trust Model: Open-source smart contracts, audited code, transparent operations

3. The Operator (Capital Manager)

Responsibility: Capital allocation, risk management, yield optimization
Sees: Full DeFi landscape (vault APYs, liquidity metrics, security risks)
Decides: Which vaults to use, how to allocate capital, when to rebalance
Trust Model: Professional expertise, fiduciary duty, performance metrics

Critical Insight: Each role operates independently, with clear boundaries и responsibilities. Никто не является single point of failure.

What the Window IS and IS NOT¶

The Window IS:

✅ Interface Layer: UI/UX для user interactions, dashboard для operator decisions
✅ Routing Layer: Integration logic directing flows (user → custody → vaults)
✅ Information Layer: Displaying balances, yields, transaction history (all from chain)
✅ Security Enforcer: Signature verification, transaction validation, access control

The Window IS NOT:

❌ Custodian: Saga не управляет средствами напрямую (Fordefi MPC custody)
❌ Vault Operator: Saga не управляет DeFi strategies directly (integrates с Pendle, Curve, Convex)
❌ Investment Advisor: Saga не советует specific strategies (users choose their risk tier)
❌ Bank: Saga не holds balances (enterprise custody via Fordefi)

Security Model: Trust Through Architecture¶

Zero-Trust Design¶

Traditional Banking:

flowchart LR
    A[User] -->|"Trust"| B[Bank]
    B -->|"Trust"| C[Bank's Systems]

    style B fill:#FFB6C1

Single point of trust failure

DeFi Native:

flowchart LR
    A[User] -->|"Trust"| B[Smart Contracts]

    style B fill:#90EE90

Trust code, not institution — but complex to understand

Saga Banking Window:

flowchart TB
    A[User] -->|"Trust"| B["Saga Smart Contracts<br/>(audited, upgradeable)"]
    B -->|"Architecture"| C["Custody: Fordefi MPC"]
    B -->|"Architecture"| D["DeFi: Pendle, Curve, Convex"]
    C --> E["On-Chain<br/>(Ethereum)"]
    D --> E

    style E fill:#90EE90

Multi-layer trust, all verifiable on-chain

Key Security Properties:

✅ Multi-Layer Trust: No single point of failure (custody, vaults, smart contracts all independent)
✅ Verifiable Security: All transactions on-chain, auditable by anyone
✅ Professional Standards: Custody providers SOC 2 certified, vaults audited 10+ times
✅ User Control: Users retain ultimate control (can exit via smart contract emergency functions)

Professional Custody for All Funds¶

User-Facing Flow:

flowchart LR
    A[User регистрируется] --> B[Получает депозитный адрес]
    B --> C[Отправляет USDC/USDT]
    C --> D[Crypto2B детектирует]
    D --> E[Средства в Fordefi custody]

User регистрируется через Google/email → Supabase Auth
User получает персональный депозитный адрес → Crypto2B генерирует
User отправляет стейблкоины → on-chain транзакция
Crypto2B детектирует депозит → уведомляет backend
Средства переводятся в custody → Fordefi MPC

Behind-the-Scenes (Professional Custody):

Crypto2B webhook → backend получает уведомление о депозите
Backend обновляет баланс → пользователь видит средства
Custody provider (Fordefi) → управляет реальными средствами
Funds allocated к vaults → operator discretion via custody provider APIs
Yields compound → automatically via vault smart contracts
Withdrawal request → admin одобряет → Fordefi отправляет средства

Why This Model?

Users get simplicity (Google/email auth = familiar, no crypto wallet needed)
Platform gets security (Fordefi MPC = enterprise-grade custody)
Operators get flexibility (custody APIs = programmable, vaults = optimized)

Philosophical Advantages¶

1. Asymmetric Complexity¶

Problem с Traditional DeFi:

flowchart TB
    subgraph USER["User must understand"]
        U1["Gas fees и optimization"]
        U2["Slippage и MEV"]
        U3["Liquidity pools и impermanent loss"]
        U4["Smart contract risks"]
        U5["APY volatility"]
    end

    USER --> R["❌ 99% of potential users intimidated"]

    style R fill:#FFB6C1

Saga's Solution:

flowchart TB
    subgraph USER["User sees"]
        U1["Google/Email login"]
        U2["10% APY (MVP single strategy)"]
        U3["Deposit / Withdraw buttons"]
        U4["Current balance"]
    end

    subgraph OPERATOR["Operator manages"]
        O1["Gas optimization"]
        O2["Vault selection"]
        O3["Daily rebalancing"]
        O4["Smart contract upgrades"]
    end

    USER --> R["✅ 10x larger addressable market"]
    OPERATOR --> R

    style R fill:#90EE90
    style USER fill:#e1f5fe
    style OPERATOR fill:#fff3e0

Benefit: Complexity handled by professionals, simplicity experienced by users.

2. Flexibility Without Constraints¶

Problem с Existing Platforms:

Platform	Limitation
Platform A	Only approved vaults
Platform B	Lock funds for X days
Platform C	2% withdrawal fee

Result: Operators constrained, capital inefficient

Saga's Solution:

Feature	Capability
Vault integration	Any DeFi vault via API
Rebalancing	Anytime, no lock-ups
Withdrawal fees	Zero for users

Result: Operators free to optimize, users benefit from competition

Benefit: Market forces drive efficiency, not platform rules.

3. Aligned Incentives¶

Misaligned Incentives (Common Problem):

Actor	Problem
Platform	Profits from user funds → temptation to take risks
Users	Bear downside risk, platform keeps fees even if losses
Result	Moral hazard

Saga's Aligned Incentives:

Actor	Incentive
Saga	Earns yield spread → incentive к optimize yields
Users	Can withdraw anytime → Saga must maintain trust
Custody (Fordefi)	Liable for security → professional-grade protection
Vault operators	Compete on performance → best yields win allocation
Result	All parties benefit from platform success

Benefit: Economic alignment creates virtuous cycle.

🌍 Real-World Analogies¶

1. Uber/Lyft Model¶

What They Do:

Uber не владеет cars (drivers own them)
Uber не employs drivers (independent contractors)
Uber просто interface (app connects riders with drivers)

How Saga is Similar:

Saga не holds user funds (custody provider manages)
Saga не operates protocols (Pendle, Curve, Convex manage yields)
Saga просто interface (connects users with DeFi ecosystem)

Key Difference: Uber controls pricing и rules. Saga gives control to operators.

2. Airport Security Checkpoint¶

What It Does:

Checkpoint не owns the plane (airline does)
Checkpoint не decides destination (passenger does)
Checkpoint просто verifies identity и security (passport, boarding pass)

How Saga is Similar:

Saga не holds funds (custody provider does)
Saga не decides allocation (operator does)
Saga просто verifies transactions (signature, smart contract validation)

Key Similarity: Security layer between parties, stateless operation.

3. Old-School Switchboard Operator (Telephony)¶

What They Did (1900s-1950s):

Operator plugged cables to connect callers
Operator didn't listen to conversations (protocol)
Operator просто facilitated connection

How Saga is Similar:

Saga routes transactions (user → custody → vaults)
Saga doesn't control funds (non-custodial)
Saga просто facilitates connection between parties

Evolution: Modern phones eliminated operator → DeFi eliminated intermediaries → Saga brings back smart intermediation.

Comparative Models¶

Model Comparison Matrix¶

Aspect	Traditional Bank	Custodial Platform	DeFi Native	Saga (Banking Window)
User Funds	Bank holds	Platform holds	User controls (wallet)	Enterprise custody (Fordefi)
Private Keys	Not applicable	Platform stores	User stores	Fordefi MPC manages
Capital Management	Bank decides	Platform algorithms	User self-service	Professional operators
Transparency	Opaque	Semi-opaque	Fully transparent	Fully transparent
Flexibility	None (bank rules)	Low (platform limits)	High (but complex)	High (via operators)
User Experience	Simple (trusted)	Simple (custodial risk)	Complex (intimidating)	Simple (Google/email auth)
Security Model	Trust institution	Trust platform	Trust code	Trust architecture
Regulatory Risk	High (centralized)	Very High (custodial)	Low (decentralized)	Low (enterprise custody)

Saga Occupies Unique Position: Combines simplicity of traditional/custodial platforms с security и transparency DeFi native approaches.

Strategic Implications¶

Why the Banking Window Model Wins¶

1. Regulatory Advantage

Non-custodial interface ≠ custodian → lighter regulatory burden
Custody providers already licensed → Saga leverages their compliance
Operators manage capital (not Saga) → not investment advisor

2. Network Effects

More users → more TVL → attract better custody deals → lower fees → attract more users
More operators → better strategies → higher yields → attract more users
More vault integrations → diversification → lower risk → attract institutions

3. Defensibility

Not competing with custody providers → partnerships instead of competition
Not competing with vaults → aggregation value (hard to replicate)
Open-source smart contracts → trust через transparency

4. Scalability

Infrastructure burden handled by partners (custody, vaults, audits)
Team can focus на interface и experience (core value proposition)
Capital efficiency (no need to store user funds, operate vaults)

Business Strategy:

Project Overview - High-level project summary
Whitepaper - Complete vision и market analysis
External Integrations - Partnership strategy

User Resources:

Getting Started - How to use the "window"
FAQ - Common questions about philosophy

Developer Resources:

Architecture Overview - Technical implementation of window concept
DeFi Integration - Window integration layer

The Banking Window Concept: Philosophy of Saga¶

🏦 Origins of the Concept¶

The Physical Banking Window¶

Evolution to Digital Banking Window¶

Core Philosophy: Separation of Concerns¶

The Three Roles¶

What the Window IS and IS NOT¶

Security Model: Trust Through Architecture¶

Zero-Trust Design¶

Professional Custody for All Funds¶

Philosophical Advantages¶

1. Asymmetric Complexity¶

2. Flexibility Without Constraints¶

3. Aligned Incentives¶

🌍 Real-World Analogies¶

1. Uber/Lyft Model¶

2. Airport Security Checkpoint¶

3. Old-School Switchboard Operator (Telephony)¶

Comparative Models¶

Model Comparison Matrix¶

Strategic Implications¶

Why the Banking Window Model Wins¶

Related Documents¶