Clearstar vs KPK: risk research or broader products (2026)

Both Clearstar and KPK curate DeFi strategies, but they emphasize different parts of the job. Clearstar presents itself as a risk research and advisory firm as well as a vault curator. Its approach includes scored protocol and asset assessments, diligence on governance and contracts, and ongoing monitoring of collateral, oracles and liquidity. It also offers product setup, operational support and incident response. KPK is broader as an asset manager: it runs curated yield vaults, tokenised funds and treasury mandates, including products aimed at organisations. It also describes policy-bound AI agents for market monitoring and execution. KPK has the larger listed TVL, about $217 million versus Clearstar’s $188 million. Both list 11 chains or networks, though their selections differ. Choose based on the service and product model you need, not TVL alone.

Neither Clearstar nor KPK publishes fees. Clearstar says advisory engagements appear to be bespoke, but a price list is not available. For deposits, any management or performance charge may depend on the particular vault and the platform hosting it, so inspect that product’s terms before committing. KPK does not state management fees, performance fees, or deposit and withdrawal costs for its vaults, funds or treasury mandates. Its onchain transactions also involve network gas costs, which vary by chain and transaction; no amounts are stated. Do not assume that a curator’s products share one fee schedule, or that a fee shown for one strategy applies to another. If fees are not clearly displayed for the specific product, ask the project or check its product documentation before depositing.

Both involve risks beyond the underlying DeFi protocols. Clearstar’s risk-first process includes assessments and continuous monitoring, but those measures do not eliminate the possibility of losses. No audits are listed for Clearstar, and public incident history is not stated. Depositors also rely on the curator’s decisions and permissions, which adds curator risk. KPK is described as noncustodial, reducing the risk of a company holding depositor assets, but smart-contract and underlying protocol risks remain. Two audits are listed for KPK, though the audit providers and scope are not detailed publicly; look for reports covering the specific vault or fund. KPK also describes automated, AI-driven execution, which carries model and execution risks, particularly in stressed markets. Neither approach guarantees returns. Consider the exact product, permissions, underlying protocols and loss exposure before depositing.

Clearstar’s distinctive offer is its risk research and service across a product’s lifecycle: it describes support from design and integration through monitoring, strategy operations and incident response. Its published risk reports are scored and tiered, although the scoring methodology is not shown publicly. This makes Clearstar a closer fit for allocators who want a curator with an explicit research and oversight focus, or organisations seeking advisory and implementation support. KPK puts more emphasis on investable product types. Its tokenised funds aim to spread exposure across protocols and chains, while its vaults target yield strategies and its mandates serve DAOs and other organisations. KPK also reports public treasury data and analytics, and says it offers Covered Vaults. These features give it a wider product menu, but returns still depend on the selected strategies and underlying protocols.

Choose Clearstar if your priority is a risk-first curator that offers protocol assessments, ongoing monitoring and broader advisory or integration support. Its lack of a listed token may also suit someone who does not want exposure to a curator token, though that says nothing by itself about vault risk. Choose KPK if you want a wider set of onchain products, including funds, yield vaults and treasury mandates, or value its noncustodial design and public reporting. KPK has the higher listed TVL and two audits listed, but their scope is not detailed publicly. Clearstar has no audits listed, and neither publishes fees. For either project, compare the specific product’s terms, contract coverage, permissions and underlying exposures. Do not treat TVL, monitoring or audits as guarantees against loss.