Infrared Finance

Infrared Finance is a liquid staking protocol for BERA on Berachain, built around the chain’s proof-of-liquidity design. Its single pool held $12.4 million at the 2026-08-14 survey. The registry rejects it because it is too small. One practice advising 100 households moves $1M to $8M into a venue based on the same research, and that amount could hinder exits at this size. We do not open an individual review until the protocol clears the size floor. Size alone decides the judgment, whatever the protocol’s quality. A review at sufficient size would also depend on Berachain’s standing in the chain registry.

Review triggers: events that reopen the verdict
• TVL sustained above the retired TVL threshold for 30 days

Watched nightly: a warning on its venues or files, or a cited document that changes, reopens the memo. The first confirmation is due 2026-11-15.

The research file

Materiality mechanism, applied

The size floor reflects capacity, not quality. A $2 million household with a 5-10% crypto sleeve and a 10-40% venue weight would direct roughly $10,000 to $80,000 here. Across 100 similar clients, one practice can direct $1 million to $8 million to a single venue based on the same research. Below the protocol size floor, that amount could hinder exits. TVL is also a generous measure of capacity, not a promise that withdrawals will clear. Utilization, queues, unbonding, bridge depth and token liquidity can all make the amount available for withdrawal lower than the headline figure. Small size does not itself show weak governance or team quality. The class rule makes no such judgment because strong controls cannot fix inadequate capacity for this distribution channel.

Mechanism applicability

Infrared describes iBERA as a liquid-staking token backed 1:1 by BERA delegated to its validator set, with rewards reflected through validator sweep events. The wider protocol also includes iBGT and proof-of-liquidity products, but this survey record covers only iBERA staking.

Current observation and perimeter

The DefiLlama API read on 2026-08-15 reported approximately $16.4M on Berachain and classified Infrared Finance as liquid staking. The single-chain product remains far below the shared v1 size floor. No current evidence refutes the size basis.

Control and exit applicability

Infrared selects the validator set and controls reward sweeps and the iBERA contracts. Protocol redemption burns iBERA and queues withdrawal requests, while an immediate exit depends on secondary liquidity. Audit evidence does not guarantee protection from slashing, withdrawal queues or liquidity stress.

Why the class rule decides

The shared v1 review for protocols below the size floor decides the case. Reopen the individual review after iBERA TVL stays above the size floor for 30 days and Berachain has an acceptable chain judgment. Then check validators and slashing, backing and sweeps, controls, audits and incidents, fees, queue behavior, and stressed exits against named alternatives.

Research status

This is a capacity-unproven record for Infrared Finance, not a quality rejection or approval. Reported TVL says how big the venue is, not what the client owns, who can change the rules, or how a position exits at a proposed size. The individual review opens when the protocol clears the size floor.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• Infrared Docs — current token mechanisms · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: iBERA, 1:1 BERA backing, validator set, iBGT distinction, proof of liquidity
• Infrared — current iBERA documentation · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: validator rewards, sweep events, APR accounting, product perimeter
• DefiLlama — Infrared Finance survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, Berachain, liquid-staking category, survey perimeter

Inherited controls

The research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.