An overview of how to categorize and manage wrapped and synthetic assets within portfolio tracking applications, detailing their unique mechanics and implications for accurate financial reporting.
LABS
How to Handle Wrapped and Synthetic Assets in Trackers
A technical guide for developers and portfolio managers on integrating and managing non-native asset representations in DeFi tracking systems.
Chainscore © 2025
Core Asset Types and Their Mechanics
Wrapped Assets (e.g., Wrapped BTC)
Wrapped assets are tokenized versions of native cryptocurrencies, pegged 1:1 to the original asset and secured by a custodian or smart contract. They enable cross-chain functionality by representing assets like Bitcoin on other blockchains such as Ethereum.
- Pegged Value: Maintains a fixed 1:1 value with the underlying asset through reserves.
- Cross-Chain Utility: Allows BTC to be used in DeFi protocols on Ethereum (e.g., as collateral on Aave).
- Custodial Risk: Relies on a trusted entity or decentralized bridge to hold the underlying collateral securely.
- Example: WBTC (Wrapped Bitcoin) is the most prominent, requiring users to trust a merchant custodian to mint and burn tokens. This matters as it expands asset utility but introduces counterparty risk that must be monitored in trackers.
Synthetic Assets
Synthetic assets are financial instruments minted via smart contracts that track the price of an underlying asset without requiring direct ownership. They are algorithmically collateralized, often with crypto assets, to mirror real-world stocks, commodities, or indices.
- Price Exposure: Provides access to traditional markets (e.g., Tesla stock, gold) via blockchain.
- Collateralization: Typically over-collateralized with crypto (e.g., 150% in SNX for sUSD) to maintain stability.
- Decentralized Oracles: Depend on price feeds (like Chainlink) to ensure accurate peg maintenance.
- Example: Synthetix's sBTC tracks Bitcoin's price but is backed by SNX tokens, not actual BTC. This matters for users seeking diversified exposure without leaving the crypto ecosystem, though trackers must account for oracle and liquidation risks.
Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSDs)
Liquid staking derivatives are tokens representing staked assets (like ETH) that provide liquidity and yield while the underlying asset is locked in a proof-of-stake protocol. They combine staking rewards with the ability to trade or use the derivative in DeFi.
- Liquidity Unlock: Converts illiquid staked positions into tradable tokens (e.g., stETH for Lido-staked ETH).
- Yield Generation: Accrues staking rewards automatically, reflected in the token's rebasing or reward-bearing mechanics.
- DeFi Composability: Can be used as collateral for loans or in liquidity pools while earning staking yield.
- Example: Lido's stETH allows users to earn Ethereum staking rewards and simultaneously use the token in protocols like Curve. This is crucial for trackers to accurately reflect both the asset value and the accumulating yield.
Bridge-Issued Assets
Bridge-issued assets are tokens created when moving assets between blockchains via a cross-chain bridge. They represent a claim on the original asset held in a bridge contract or vault on the source chain, with varying levels of decentralization and security models.
- Interoperability: Facilitates asset transfer across ecosystems (e.g., moving USDC from Ethereum to Avalanche).
- Varying Security: Security depends on the bridge's design, ranging from multi-signature custodians to optimistic or zero-knowledge proofs.
- Canonical vs. Wrapped: Some are canonical (native to the new chain, like USDC.e), others are wrapped representations.
- Example: Using the Avalanche Bridge to convert Ethereum USDC to Avalanche USDC.e. For trackers, this matters as users must identify the correct asset version and understand the bridge's trust assumptions and potential vulnerabilities.
Rebasing vs. Reward-Bearing Tokens
This mechanic defines how yield is distributed for synthetic or staked assets. Rebasing tokens automatically adjust the holder's token balance to reflect accrued rewards, while reward-bearing tokens maintain a constant balance but increase in value per token.
- Rebasing Example: AMPL and some stETH versions increase wallet token quantity periodically to represent yield.
- Value-Accruing Example: aTokens from Aave or cTokens from Compound grow in exchange rate against the underlying asset.
- Tracker Impact: Rebasing requires balance refresh for accurate valuation, while reward-bearing tokens need exchange rate monitoring.
- User Consideration: Affects tax reporting and portfolio display, as rebasing creates many small transactions. Trackers must correctly interpret the protocol's mechanism to display accurate balances and returns.
Oracle Dependency & Price Feeds
Oracle dependency is a critical mechanic for synthetic and many wrapped assets, as their value is determined by external price feeds rather than direct market trading. Accurate tracking relies on the security and reliability of these decentralized oracle networks.
- Feed Source: Assets like Synthetix synths use Chainlink oracles to pull price data from multiple exchanges.
- Manipulation Resistance: Oracles aggregate data to prevent price manipulation, which is vital for asset stability.
- Failure Risk: If an oracle fails or is attacked, the asset may become mispriced or unusable in protocols.
- Example: UMA's synthetic tokens rely on a decentralized oracle to resolve price disputes. For trackers, this means ensuring the displayed price aligns with the oracle feed and understanding the risks of oracle failure on asset valuation.
Technical Integration Workflow
Process for integrating wrapped and synthetic asset tracking into blockchain explorers and analytics platforms.
1
Define Asset Classification and Data Sources
Identify and categorize the wrapped and synthetic assets to be tracked, and establish the primary data ingestion points.
Detailed Instructions
Begin by establishing a clear asset classification schema to differentiate between wrapped tokens (e.g., WETH, WBTC) and synthetic assets (e.g., sUSD, sBTC). For wrapped assets, the primary data source is typically the smart contract of the underlying canonical asset's bridge, such as the WETH contract at 0xC02aaA39b223FE8D0A0e5C4F27eAD9083C756Cc2. For synthetics, identify the protocol's minting and burning contracts, like the Synthetix ProxyERC20 system. Create a registry mapping each asset to its contract address, bridge origin chain (e.g., Ethereum Mainnet for WETH), and the canonical asset it represents. This registry is foundational for all subsequent data queries and logic.
- Sub-step 1: Compile a list of target assets, specifying their type (wrapped/native bridge vs. synthetic/minted).
- Sub-step 2: For each asset, record the primary smart contract address, the ABI for interaction, and the RPC endpoint for its native chain.
- Sub-step 3: Validate the contract addresses and ABIs by performing a simple
balanceOfcall to ensure connectivity and correct interface.
Tip: Use a configuration file (JSON or YAML) to manage this registry, allowing for easy updates and version control.
2
Implement Balance and Supply Tracking Logic
Develop the core logic to query and calculate the circulating supply and individual balances for the identified assets.
Detailed Instructions
Implement the on-chain data fetching logic to track total supply and wallet balances. For wrapped assets, the total supply is directly available from the token contract's totalSupply() function. For synthetic assets, the supply is often derived from the debt pool of the issuing protocol. Individual balances are fetched via the balanceOf(address) function. It's critical to handle cross-chain data for wrapped assets; you may need to query the locking contract on the source chain (e.g., Ethereum) and the minting contract on the destination chain (e.g., Polygon). Use multi-call contracts for batch queries to improve efficiency.
- Sub-step 1: Write a function that calls
totalSupply()on the asset contract and caches the result. - Sub-step 2: Implement a balance fetcher that accepts a wallet address and returns the balance by calling
balanceOf(user_address). - Sub-step 3: For cross-chain wrapped assets, set up a service to query the bridge's lock contract, e.g., the Polygon PoS bridge
0xA0c68C638235ee32657e8f720a23ceC1bFc77C77, to get the total locked amount which should mirror the wrapped supply.
Tip: Use a library like ethers.js or web3.py with provider failover logic to ensure robust RPC connectivity.
3
Integrate with Event Listening and Indexing
Set up real-time monitoring of mint, burn, and transfer events to keep tracker data current.
Detailed Instructions
To maintain real-time accuracy, you must listen to on-chain events. For wrapped assets, key events are Deposit (mint) and Withdrawal (burn) from the bridge contract. For synthetic assets, listen for Issued and Burned events from the synth contract or DebtPool changes. Set up an event listener or subscribe to logs via a WebSocket connection to your node provider. Parse the event logs to update your internal database for supply and prominent holder balances. Indexing historical data is also crucial; consider using The Graph subgraphs for protocols like Synthetix or a custom indexer using TrueBlocks.
- Sub-step 1: Identify the exact event signatures (e.g.,
Transfer(address,address,uint256)) and the contracts that emit them. - Sub-step 2: Configure a service (e.g., using ethers
provider.on) to listen for these events on confirmed blocks. - Sub-step 3: On receiving an event, update the relevant aggregate supply figure and the specific user balances in your datastore.
Tip: Implement idempotent event processing to handle reorgs safely. Store block numbers and transaction hashes with each update.
4
Build and Expose API Endpoints for the Tracker
Create a structured API to serve the processed data on asset supplies, balances, and historical metrics.
Detailed Instructions
Develop a RESTful or GraphQL API that exposes the tracked data to your front-end or external consumers. Key endpoints should include /api/v1/assets/{address}/supply to return the current total supply and its breakdown, and /api/v1/assets/{address}/holders to list top balances. For synthetic assets, include an endpoint like /api/v1/synth/{symbol}/debt-pool to show the backing collateral. Ensure all responses are cached appropriately to reduce database load. Use API keys or rate limiting for public access. Document the API using OpenAPI specification.
- Sub-step 1: Design endpoint schemas, specifying response objects with fields like
total_supply,timestamp,chain_id, andasset_type. - Sub-step 2: Implement the endpoints using a framework like Express.js or FastAPI, connecting them to your indexed data.
- Sub-step 3: Add a health check endpoint that verifies connectivity to all underlying RPC nodes and data sources.
Tip: Use a middleware for logging and monitoring (e.g., Prometheus metrics) to track API performance and error rates.
5
Implement Data Validation and Alerting
Establish checks to ensure data integrity and set up monitoring alerts for anomalies.
Detailed Instructions
Data validation is critical for trust. Implement sanity checks, such as ensuring the sum of individual holder balances for a wrapped asset does not exceed the total locked amount in its bridge. For synthetic assets, verify that the total synth supply aligns with the protocol's reported debt pool size. Set up automated scripts that run these checks at regular intervals (e.g., every 100 blocks). Configure alerting systems (e.g., using PagerDuty, Slack webhooks) to notify engineers of discrepancies, such as a supply delta exceeding a threshold like 0.1% or RPC node failures. This layer ensures the tracker's reliability.
- Sub-step 1: Write validation functions that compare on-chain state from multiple sources (e.g., direct contract call vs. event-derived sum).
- Sub-step 2: Schedule these validations as cron jobs or within your event processing pipeline.
- Sub-step 3: Integrate with an alerting service, defining clear severity levels for different types of failures.
Tip: Maintain a dashboard (e.g., Grafana) visualizing key metrics like supply trends, validation pass/fail status, and system latency for proactive monitoring.
Risk Profile Comparison
Comparison of approaches for handling wrapped and synthetic assets in index trackers.
| Risk Factor | Direct Custody (Native) | Third-Party Wrapper | Synthetic via Swap |
|---|---|---|---|
Counterparty Risk | None (direct on-chain) | High (e.g., WBTC custodian) | Moderate (swap dealer & collateral) |
Collateralization | Not applicable | Over-collateralized (e.g., 150%) | Fully collateralized (UCITS compliant) |
Regulatory Clarity | Varies by jurisdiction | Evolving (reliance on issuer) | Complex (derivatives regulation) |
Smart Contract Risk | Native chain risk only | High (wrapper contract audits critical) | High (swap & collateral contracts) |
Liquidity Access | Limited to native DEX/CEX | Broad (Ethereum DeFi ecosystem) | Direct via prime broker |
Tracking Error | Low (direct exposure) | Low (pegged asset) | Very Low (swap-based replication) |
Operational Cost | High (multi-chain infra) | Moderate (gas fees on wrapper) | Low (institutional swap fee) |
Settlement Finality | Native chain finality | Subject to wrapper bridge delays | T+2 for swap settlements |
Implementation Perspectives
Understanding the Basics
Wrapped assets are tokenized versions of other assets, like WETH representing Ethereum, that allow them to be used in DeFi protocols. Synthetic assets are tokens that track the price of an external asset, like gold or stocks, without holding the underlying, such as Synthetix's sBTC.
Key Points
- Purpose: Wrapped assets solve compatibility issues, enabling native assets like BTC to be used on Ethereum. Synthetics allow exposure to real-world assets on-chain.
- Example: Wrapped Bitcoin (WBTC) is a popular ERC-20 token backed 1:1 by Bitcoin held in custody, making it usable in AMMs like Uniswap.
- Use Case: A user can deposit WBTC into a yield tracker like Yearn Finance to earn interest, something impossible with native BTC on Ethereum.
How Trackers Work
Trackers, such as yield aggregators or index funds, must verify the asset type. For wrapped assets, they check the custodian's reserves. For synthetics, they rely on oracle price feeds to ensure the token's value matches its target.
Pricing and Valuation Challenges
An overview of the critical complexities in accurately valuing and pricing wrapped and synthetic assets within index trackers, focusing on data sourcing, model integrity, and risk management.
Oracles and Data Integrity
Decentralized oracles are critical for providing off-chain price data to on-chain trackers. Their reliability directly impacts valuation accuracy.
- Single-point failure risk if relying on one oracle source.
- Example: Using Chainlink for BTC/USD feeds to price wBTC.
- Why this matters: Inaccurate data can lead to mispriced assets, arbitrage losses, and tracker de-pegging, eroding user trust.
Collateralization and Peg Stability
Over-collateralization models are used to back synthetic assets, ensuring their value is pegged to the underlying asset. The collateral ratio is a key health metric.
- Dynamic monitoring of collateral pools (e.g., MakerDAO's Vaults for DAI).
- Example: sETH must be backed by more than 100% collateral in ETH or other assets.
- Why this matters: A falling collateral ratio risks de-pegging, causing tracker inaccuracies and potential liquidation cascades for users.
Cross-Chain Asset Pricing
Bridged asset valuation involves pricing assets that exist natively on one blockchain but are represented on another via a bridge, introducing unique risks.
- Bridge security and liquidity directly affect the wrapped asset's price (e.g., wBTC on Ethereum vs. BTC on Bitcoin).
- Example: A bridge hack can cause the wBTC price to diverge from BTC.
- Why this matters: Trackers must price the wrapped version, not the native asset, requiring robust risk assessment of the bridging mechanism for users.
Liquidity and Slippage Impact
Thin liquidity in decentralized exchanges (DEXs) can cause significant price slippage for large trades, distorting the market price used for valuation.
- Illiquid pools lead to wider bid-ask spreads for assets like synthetic gold (e.g., PAXG).
- Example: Pricing a tracker using the last trade on a low-volume DEX can be inaccurate.
- Why this matters: Users face tracking error if the tracker's NAV calculation uses prices not reflective of the true market, impacting returns.
Regulatory and Jurisdictional Variance
Legal status and treatment of wrapped and synthetic assets vary by jurisdiction, affecting their perceived value and risk profile for institutional investors.
- Securities classification can change liquidity and custody requirements (e.g., SEC's view on certain synthetics).
- Example: A synthetic stock tracker may be legal in one region but not another.
- Why this matters: This creates valuation uncertainty and limits the investor base, impacting the liquidity and stability of the tracker for all users.
Model and Index Methodology
Valuation models must be explicitly defined to handle the unique mechanics of wrapped and synthetic assets within an index's construction rules.
- Handling rebasing tokens or fee-accruing synthetics that change in quantity.
- Example: Accurately reflecting staking rewards from Lido's stETH in a tracker's NAV.
- Why this matters: Without robust methodology, the tracker fails to accurately represent the target exposure, leading to performance drift and unexpected outcomes for users.
SECTION-FAQ
Frequently Asked Technical Questions
Further Reading and Tools
Ready to Start Building?
Let's bring your Web3 vision to life.
From concept to deployment, ChainScore helps you architect, build, and scale secure blockchain solutions.