How is Rekord different from Maple, Centrifuge, or Midas?

How is Rekord different from Maple, Centrifuge, or Midas?

Maple, Centrifuge and Midas are all bringing real-world or institutional credit on-chain, and each puts its weight on a different part of the problem. Rather than ranking them, it's more useful to look at what each emphasizes and where Rekord's focus sits.

Maple began as an on-chain lending marketplace for institutional borrowers and has broadened into wider credit and yield products. Its emphasis is the lending marketplace and the borrower relationships behind it.

Centrifuge is one of the earliest real-world-asset protocols. It focuses on bringing off-chain assets, originally invoices and similar receivables, on-chain through tokenized pools, with the emphasis on the financing structure itself.

Midas focuses on tokenized yield-bearing instruments, packaging exposures such as Treasury strategies into tokens that can be held and used on-chain.

Where Rekord's focus sits

Rekord's emphasis is verification: the proof layer beneath the assets. A token or an instrument is only as meaningful as the evidence that the asset behind it exists, is held where it's said to be, and is performing as reported. Rekord's Trust Layer is built to make that evidence checkable, so a capital provider can verify a position instead of relying on a periodic report.

Rekord does not host its own vaults and has not issued a token. It runs on mature, independently audited third-party vault infrastructure and gives investors access to defined fixed-income instruments, each with its own documented terms.

These platforms overlap, but they aren't simply head-to-head. They emphasize different parts of the same broad goal. Before allocating to any of them, look at what each instrument holds, how that is verified, and where the platform's own fees sit in the payment order.

Related: Is Rekord a bank, a fund, or a protocol?.