Перейти к содержанию

The Banking Window Concept: Philosophy of Saga

Audience: business 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:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│              TRADITIONAL BANK (1950s)                │
│                                                      │
│    CLIENT SIDE           │           EMPLOYEE SIDE  │
│                          │                          │
│  👤 Customer             │             Teller 💼    │
│  • Sees simple form      │  • Accesses complex      │
│  • Signs document        │    internal systems      │
│  • Receives receipt      │  • Processes transaction │
│  • Doesn't see backend   │  • Has full context      │
│                          │                          │
│           ┌──────────────┴──────────────┐           │
│           │    BULLETPROOF GLASS        │           │
│           │    (The "Window")           │           │
│           │                             │           │
│           │ • Physical security barrier │           │
│           │ • Transparent (both can see)│           │
│           │ • Allows document exchange  │           │
│           │ • Prevents unauthorized     │           │
│           │   access                    │           │
│           └─────────────────────────────┘           │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

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 (MetaMask connection, 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 (non-custodial), make investment decisions (operator role), store secrets - Does Do: Authentication (Web3 signatures), 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: Smart contracts directing flows (user → custody → vaults)
  • ✅ Information Layer: Displaying balances, yields, transaction history (all from blockchain)
  • ✅ Security Enforcer: Signature verification, smart contract validation, access control

The Window IS NOT:

  • ❌ Custodian: Saga не держит private keys пользователей (users control via MetaMask)
  • ❌ 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 (everything on-chain, verifiable)

Security Model: Trust Through Architecture

Zero-Trust Design

Traditional Banking:

User → (Trust) → Bank → (Trust) → Bank's Systems
       └─ Single point of trust failure

DeFi Native:

User → (Trust) → Smart Contracts
       └─ Trust code, not institution (good!)
       └─ But code complex to understand (bad for adoption)

Saga Banking Window:

User → (Trust) → Saga Smart Contracts (audited, upgradeable)
               ↓
       (Architecture) → Custody Provider (Fordefi MPC - DeFi-native security)
               ↓
       (Architecture) → DeFi Protocols (Pendle, Curve, Convex - proven yields)
               ↓
       (Verify) → Blockchain (Ethereum - immutable truth)

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)

Non-Custodial for Users, Professional Custody for Capital

User-Facing Flow (Non-Custodial):

  1. User connects MetaMask → Saga never sees private key
  2. User signs deposit transaction → happens on-chain, Saga can't reverse
  3. Funds enter smart contract → governed by code, not Saga team
  4. User can withdraw anytime → direct smart contract interaction, no permission needed

Behind-the-Scenes (Professional Custody):

  1. Smart contract triggers event → backend listens
  2. Backend requests custody provider → "move X USDC to operational wallet"
  3. Custody provider validates → multi-sig approval, security checks
  4. Funds allocated к vaults → operator discretion via custody provider APIs
  5. Yields compound → automatically via vault smart contracts
  6. Withdrawal request → custody provider releases funds back к smart contract → user receives

Why This Hybrid Model? - Users get simplicity и security (MetaMask = familiar, custody provider = professional) - Operators get flexibility и efficiency (custody APIs = programmable, vaults = optimized) - Platform gets scalability (custody provider handles security burden, vaults handle yield complexity)

Philosophical Advantages

1. Asymmetric Complexity

Problem с Traditional DeFi:

User must understand:
- Gas fees и optimization
- Slippage и MEV
- Liquidity pools и impermanent loss
- Smart contract risks
- APY volatility
→ Result: 99% of potential users intimidated

Saga's Solution:

User sees:
- "Connect Wallet" button
- "5% / 10% / 20% APY" choices
- "Deposit" / "Withdraw" buttons
- Current balance display

Operator manages:
- Gas optimization (batched transactions)
- Vault selection (risk-adjusted yields)
- Rebalancing (daily automated)
- Smart contract upgrades (UUPS pattern)
→ Result: 10x larger addressable market

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

2. Flexibility Without Constraints

Problem с Existing Platforms:

Platform A: "You can only use our approved vaults"
Platform B: "You must lock funds for X days"
Platform C: "Withdraw fee is 2%"
→ Result: Operators constrained, capital inefficient

Saga's Solution:

Operator Dashboard:
- "Add any DeFi vault (via API integration)"
- "Rebalance anytime (no lock-ups)"
- "Zero withdrawal fees (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):

Custodial Platform:
- 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:

Banking Window Model:
- Saga earns management fee (yield spread) → incentive к optimize yields
- Users can withdraw anytime → Saga must maintain trust
- Custody provider 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) User controls (MetaMask)
Private Keys Not applicable Platform stores User stores User stores
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 (non-custodial)
Security Model Trust institution Trust platform Trust code Trust architecture
Regulatory Risk High (centralized) Very High (custodial) Low (decentralized) Low (non-custodial interface)

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:

User Resources:

Developer Resources:

✍️ Document Information

Author: Saga Philosophy Team Contributors: CEO, Product, Community, DeFi Specialist (Fordefi/Pendle/Curve/Convex integration, Oct 2025)

"The best interface is one you don't notice — until you realize how much it improved your life."

— Saga Team, on the banking window philosophy

📋 Метаданные

Версия: 2.4.82

Обновлено: 2025-10-21

Статус: Published