I think the entire LST investment strategy of the Mutual needs a master framework, likely dividing upcoming staked ETH investments into tranches emphaisizing different aspects of yield, risk, liquidity and composability. No single tranche can emphasise all 4 of these objectives with a single holding. But a mix of staked ETH tranches could achieve a blended result. Given the sunk cost of the Enzyme integration, this vault may be useful for holding emerging LSTs that do not have oracles and cannot report directly to NAV/book value. But the Mutual is large enough to spread contract risk and gain liquidity by investing directly in a diversified spread of proliferating LSTs, as long as the LST has an oracle reporting to NAV. Those LSTs that don’t (yet) can go into the Enzyme vault in the meantime to encourage decentralisation. So let’s decide how much is 100% of the staked ETH portfolio, how much is fee savings oriented via direct staking (but no liquidity and composability), and how much liquidity and composability oriented via various tranches of LSTs, likely including Lido (capped), Rocket Pool, Swell (has oracle already) etc. Advisors need to propose how many emerging LSTs should go into the Enzyme vault in the meantime. I am not a believer in passive LST indexes, because they are not offering any LSTs that do not have oracles, and they are passively managed, so do not pursue peg arbitrage or other extrinsic yield strategies that would justify their fees. The burden is on the investment advisors to propose a combination of direct staking deals AND LSTs the Mutual cannot (yet) hold directly, and the process by which this would be managed, as more successful LSTs will eventually migrate from Enzyme to direct holdings by the Mutual.