The misunderstanding around yield is structural.

Most people still see it as something you “pick,” when the real determinant of performance is how efficiently your capital gets where it needs to be.

APR tables suggest simplicity.
The market does not.

Liquidity now lives across L1s, L2s, appchains, intent routers, and timing-sensitive execution surfaces.
That fragmentation breaks the old model where “highest APR” translated into highest returns.

@Infinit_Labs' value comes from understanding why that break happened and building for the environment that replaced it.

When execution becomes the problem, yield becomes an engineering challenge, not a selection challenge.

@Infinit_Labs architecture reflects that shift:

- It scores paths instead of pools
- It measures net yield instead of advertised yield
- It optimizes execution friction instead of chasing incentives
- It treats liquidity as a topology, not a static chart

The distinction is subtle but foundational.

APR only tells you what a pool pays.
It tells you nothing about the cost of reaching that pool or the penalty of repositioning when the market moves.

Executed APY tells you the truth:
how much your capital kept after moving through the system.

This is the layer most yield products abstract away and the one Infinit chooses to solve directly.

That’s why the model compounds.
Every better route improves realized returns.
Higher realized returns attract more flow.
More flow improves routing intelligence.
Improved intelligence produces even better routes.

Execution becomes the reinforcing loop.

Zoomed out, @Infinit_Labs shifts DeFi yield from “which pool looks good” to “which route wastes the least value.”
It is a different question, and even a more accurate one.

And in a fragmented ecosystem, the answer to that question determines who sustains returns and who leaks them.