Figment vs haru invest

Figment delivers staking-as-a-service infrastructure designed specifically for institutional asset managers, exchanges, custodians, and decentralized protocol foundations. The platform maintains active, monitored validator nodes across more than thirty leading proof-of-stake protocols, encompassing major networks such as Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Avalanche, Near, and various Cosmos application chains. Organizations can deploy dedicated private validator nodes or direct delegations toward public enterprise clusters depending on balance size and architectural preferences.

Beyond standard bare-metal validator operations, Figment equips institutional engineering teams with developer tooling, including robust API endpoints and webhooks for automated staking, validator lifecycle tracking, and programmatic rewards harvesting. The Figment App serves as a centralized operational dashboard, offering institutional clients granular visibility into active stakes, historical reward distributions, commission deductions, and node uptime metrics across multi-chain portfolios.

For enterprise platforms embedding staking into consumer or custodial products, Figment acts as the underlying execution layer. Custody providers and financial institutions integrate Figment staking infrastructure directly into their existing custody environments without transferring control of funds, maintaining a clean technical separation between key storage and transaction validation.

Historically, Haru Invest structured its catalog around three primary investment tiers designed to capture market volatility and arbitrage opportunities. The entry program, Haru Wallet, operated as a flexible savings balance that generated low baseline returns without mandatory lockup intervals. Users looking for enhanced yields committed capital to Haru Earn Plus, which required fixed lock periods ranging from fifteen to three hundred sixty-five days in exchange for higher target rates. The most speculative tier, Haru Earn Explore, functioned as an algorithmic strategy product linked to specific market indices, exposing principal to potential drawdown depending on market movements.

Supported assets were deliberately concentrated on foundational digital tokens rather than broad altcoin listings. The platform accepted deposits in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Tether, USD Coin, and XRP. Capital deployment was presented to depositors as high-frequency trading, statistical arbitrage, and yield spread capture across diverse global exchanges. In practice, substantial portions of pooled user funds were outsourced to external trading firms, most notably B and S Holdings, without direct user transparency. This structural delegation removed direct custody oversight from internal operators, creating severe vulnerability to external default. Today, the catalog is entirely inoperative, serving only as historical evidence in ongoing bankruptcy distributions.

Figment utilizes a protocol commission model where fees are typically deducted directly from gross on-chain staking rewards rather than invoiced as flat monthly infrastructure costs. Standard protocol commission rates vary across supported blockchains, reflecting individual network tokenomics, hardware requirements, and custom client volume tier agreements. For dedicated institutional validator clusters, customized fee agreements or software-as-a-service infrastructure fees may apply depending on technical configuration, custom service level agreements, and support requirements.

Because Figment does not custody digital assets, all principal deposits and generated staking rewards settle directly to client-controlled wallet addresses or whitelisted institutional custody accounts according to protocol rules. Figment does not apply proprietary withdrawal charges, spread markups, or liquidity exit penalties beyond native network transaction fees and protocol commission percentages agreed in enterprise contracts.

Yield realization timelines, unbonding schedules, and payout frequencies depend strictly on the underlying network protocol mechanics. For instance, Ethereum rewards distribute on-chain according to consensus rules, while networks like Cosmos or Polkadot enforce native unbonding windows ranging from two to four weeks. Stakers must account for these native blockchain rules when modeling portfolio liquidity.

During regular operations, Haru Invest did not levy direct management or subscription fees on basic flexible wallet balances. Instead, the firm extracted revenue from performance splits on yield-bearing accounts. On specific Earn Explore strategies, the platform charged an operational fee of fifteen percent calculated strictly on gross profits generated, waiving fees when performance targets fell flat. Regular withdrawals incurred fixed network transaction charges standard across the digital asset sector, with specific rates adjusted dynamically according to underlying blockchain congestion and gas costs for Bitcoin and Ethereum.

Liquidity mechanisms completely disintegrated on June 13, 2023, when Haru Invest announced the sudden cessation of all deposit and withdrawal operations. The company cited fraudulent reporting from partner asset manager B and S Holdings, which reportedly caused massive losses exceeding hundreds of millions of dollars. As a result, depositors lost all ability to redeem locked or flexible balances. The subsequent declaration of corporate bankruptcy by the Eleventh Bankruptcy Division of the Seoul Bankruptcy Court on November 20, 2024, permanently transitioned user balances into distressed creditor claims. No public liquidity, secondary transfer market, or standard withdrawal pathway remains accessible for any account holder.

Security architecture at Figment centers strictly on non-custodial operations, ensuring that clients retain full ownership and administrative control over their cryptographic private keys and staking withdrawal credentials at all times. Figment operates validation nodes and signs blocks on behalf of delegators, but never maintains access to funds or holds authorization to transfer principal assets out of client-managed custody vaults.

To mitigate technical and operational vulnerabilities, Figment maintains independent SOC 2 Type II compliance and ISO 27001 certifications covering its infrastructure management and operational workflows. Node deployment utilizes distributed cloud and bare-metal environments across diverse geographical data centers, incorporating robust hardware security modules, multi-region failover, and active anti-DDoS mitigations to sustain high validator uptime and prevent double-signing events.

Figment provides commercial slashing coverage policies for eligible institutional clients, designed to protect against potential financial losses resulting from validator downtime penalties or accidental infrastructure errors. While these operational measures significantly diminish technical failure risks, delegators still operate within the broader regulatory and software failure risks inherent to public distributed consensus protocols.

Haru Invest operated a strictly custodial service where deposited private keys remained under centralized enterprise management rather than user control. Account-level security features included mandatory multi-factor authentication, biometric logins on mobile applications, and automated session timeouts. While internal technical infrastructure utilized enterprise-grade multi-party computation tools, these technological helps protect failed to mitigate structural financial counterparty risk. Depositors were required to relinquish complete operational ownership of their tokens upon transfer to platform collection addresses.

The critical point of failure stemmed from corporate governance and external treasury delegation rather than cryptographic network breaches. Despite assurances of internal risk management protocols, management concentrated user assets within external speculative accounts lacking segregated custodial trust accounts or deposit insurance protections. Following the withdrawal freeze, investigative authorities initiated legal actions against key executives, leading to arrests on fraud and embezzlement allegations. The absence of on-chain proof of reserves or independent third-party asset audits left depositors without visibility into balance sheet solvency until total failure occurred. Security architecture cannot protect capital when internal counterparty governance fails completely.

Headquartered in Canada and operating globally, Figment structures its products to comply with international enterprise standards, serving hedge funds, venture funds, registered investment advisers, public companies, and global fintech institutions. The company maintains strict enterprise onboarding workflows, executing standard Know Your Customer and anti-money laundering due diligence before provisioning dedicated validator infrastructure or enterprise API services.

Customer support for enterprise clients includes dedicated technical account managers, specialized integration engineers, and around-the-clock infrastructure monitoring. Service level agreements provide intended to provide response times, proactive incident notifications, and scheduled operational reviews, catering specifically to institutional expectations that standard retail community channels cannot satisfy.

Comprehensive tax and accounting support represents a core component of the platform. Figment provides downloadable, auditable reporting tools that export reward histories, cost-basis calculations, and protocol event logs in formats compatible with major institutional crypto accounting platforms, easing quarterly financial reporting and internal audit requirements for corporate treasuries.

Prior to its operational collapse, Haru Invest served an international clientele across more than one hundred forty jurisdictions, relying on an offshore corporate registration under Haru Management Limited in the British Virgin Islands, alongside operations out of South Korea. The service actively restricted users in sanctioned territories and regions requiring localized money transmitter licenses. However, the platform operated without formal financial regulatory oversight, full banking authorization, or statutory investor compensation scheme protections in the major territories where it solicited user funds.

Standard customer support channels, which formerly offered ticket-based email assistance and community chat moderation, have ceased all routine account servicing. Communication is now restricted to official bankruptcy notifications, legal filings, and designated creditor reporting protocols managed by court-appointed bankruptcy trustees in Seoul. Claimants must submit documentation validating historical account ownership, deposit transaction IDs, and verified balance statements directly through approved judicial bankruptcy channels. Regular account assistance, feature updates, and routine dispute resolutions are entirely unavailable as the entity undergoes court-ordered asset discovery, valuation, and liquidation.

Delegating to Figment validators mitigates operational node failure risks through enterprise-grade DevOps, but it does not eliminate systemic blockchain network vulnerabilities. All proof-of-stake delegators remain exposed to smart contract bugs, sudden hard forks, and native protocol governance changes that could alter yield rates or unbonding periods. While Figment provides commercial slashing protections under qualified institutional contracts, such policies cover specific operational faults rather than market-wide asset depreciation or underlying blockchain consensus failures.

Organizations must evaluate native protocol lockup schedules and liquidity constraints before allocating balance sheet capital. Figment maintains redundant failover infrastructure and continuous monitoring to prevent validator double-signing and downtime penalties, yet market participants should account for protocol-level slashing conditions that arise from broader decentralized network events outside validator operational control.

The total failure of Haru Invest highlights the severe structural risks inherent in centralized cryptocurrency yield generators. When participants hand over assets in exchange for promised returns, they assume full credit risk against the platform balance sheet and its external trading partners. Because centralized earn services do not maintain segregated client trusts or sovereign deposit insurance, account balances rank as unsecured claims during corporate liquidation proceedings. Furthermore, proprietary algorithmic trading claims often disguise leveraged exposures that cannot survive sudden market shocks or systemic fraud. Participants exploring crypto yield must evaluate whether custodial counterparty exposure matches their personal risk tolerance, as capital recovery through international insolvency courts typically entails substantial delays, heavy legal expenses, and steep haircut adjustments against original balances.