Lagoon vs Makina: chains, vaults and risks (2026)

Both platforms provide infrastructure for managed onchain strategies rather than a single fixed investment product. Lagoon lets curators launch vaults using the ERC-7540 standard. Deposits and withdrawals are requested and then settled by the curator, so the process is not necessarily instant. Lagoon also supports permissionless vault deployment and lists 22 chains.

Makina organizes strategies into Machines run by professional Operators. Its Calibers allocate capital across protocols and chains, with built-in accounting and stated risk parameters enforced onchain. Users deposit from one place, while Machines can deploy across EVM-compatible networks. However, Makina lists only Ethereum and Base. In short, Lagoon offers wider listed chain coverage and flexible vault creation; Makina emphasizes structured, operator-run strategies and execution tooling.

Neither platform publishes a complete fee schedule, so compare the terms of a specific vault or Machine before depositing. Lagoon says vaults can be deployed with no upfront fee. That does not mean deposits are free: curators may set management, performance, entry or exit fees, and network gas costs apply. Lagoon refers to four fee types, but does not lay out its own full schedule.

Makina does not publish Machine management or performance fees on its homepage. Its displayed APY figures do not clarify whether any fees apply, so check the Machine page and Operator documentation for terms. Ethereum and Base gas costs also apply to transactions. Because costs depend on the strategy and network, neither platform can be called cheaper based on published fee schedules. Compare net returns and withdrawal conditions, not headline APY alone.

Both list two audits, but audit information is not fully transparent. Lagoon says releases are audited and links to reports, but does not name the auditors or summarize findings. Its vault factory contracts are described as upgradeable, which means users should understand the related admin powers. Makina does not name its auditors or publish audit reports, so audit scope and dates are not clear.

For both platforms, smart-contract audits cannot remove strategy risk. Lagoon vaults depend on curators for strategy choices, valuation and, in some cases, custody; private credit and off-chain positions can add counterparty risk. Makina adds Operator, underlying protocol and cross-chain execution risks. It displays optional Nexus Mutual-powered Machine coverage, but terms, limits and exclusions are not published. Check the specific strategy and its withdrawal terms rather than treating audits or coverage as a guarantee.

Lagoon stands out for its broad listed network support, permissionless vault deployment and configurable access controls. Curators can use custody solutions such as Safe, Fordefi or Fireblocks, and vaults can be open or gated with whitelists, KYC checks and sanctions screening. Its ERC-7540 design is suited to strategies that need asynchronous settlement, but users may have to wait for withdrawals to be processed. Lagoon also provides a public GraphQL API for managers building their own interfaces.

Makina focuses on Operator tooling and strategy execution. Its MakinaVM is described as offering composability and atomicity without Operators deploying their own smart contracts. The product includes Machines across USD, ETH, BTC and tokenized stock strategies, plus an Operators portal, documentation and CLI. Its tokenized-stock yield options may appeal to users looking for that exposure, but they add risks that differ from conventional DeFi assets. Displayed APYs are not guaranteed.

Choose Lagoon if broad chain access, curator choice and permissionless vault creation matter most to you. It has substantially higher listed TVL and more listed chains, but its strategies vary by curator, and asynchronous settlement means you should not assume instant exits. Review the individual vault’s fees, custody, valuation approach and withdrawal rules before committing funds.

Choose Makina if you prefer defined strategy mandates, Operator-run Machines and stated onchain risk controls, and you are comfortable with its narrower listed chain support. Its optional coverage may be relevant, but the terms are not published and should not be treated as full protection. For either platform, compare the strategy’s risks and fees rather than relying on APY displays. Neither has a listed native token, and neither publishes a complete fee schedule.