Enzyme (MLN) Crypto Coin Explained: How It Works & Why It Matters

Oct, 8 2025

Enzyme (MLN) Fee Calculator

Assets Under Management (AUM) in USD:

Transaction Amount in USD:

Enter values and click Calculate to see the fee breakdown

Fee Details

Enzyme charges a 0.25% access fee on transactions, paid in MLN. The fee is automatically burned, reducing the token supply.

Ever wondered what the buzz around Enzyme (MLN) really means? In plain English, it’s a set of tools that lets anyone - from hobbyist traders to big‑bank‑type institutions - build and run crypto investment funds without a middleman. Below we break down the building blocks, the token economics, and the practical steps you need to get started.

What is Enzyme (MLN)?

Enzyme Finance is a decentralized asset‑management protocol built on the Ethereum blockchain. It started as the Melon Protocol in 2016, rebranded to Enzyme in 2020, and now powers more than $150million in on‑chain portfolios. The native MLN token is an ERC‑20 utility token that grants access to the platform and funds ongoing development. Think of Enzyme as the “Shopify for crypto funds”: the protocol supplies the infrastructure, while you bring the investment strategy.

How the Enzyme protocol works

The system is split into two layers that talk to each other through smart contracts.

Fund Layer: This is where you, the manager, interact. It consists of a Hub (the control panel) and a series of Spokes that hold the actual assets.
Infrastructure Layer: Managed by the Melon Council DAO, this layer runs the "adapter", "engine", and "price source" contracts that connect assets to price feeds, purchase MLN for fees, and supply market data.

When you launch a fund, you create a Vault, the on‑chain wallet that actually holds tokens. Investors receive Shares that represent a proportional claim on the vault’s holdings. All actions-swaps, rebalancing, fee collection-are executed by the protocol’s smart contracts, meaning no central party can intervene.

Low poly workflow from wallet to vault showing fund creation and MLN burn.

MLN token mechanics & fees

The token does two jobs: it pays the platform’s usage fees and it acts as a deflationary lever.

Access fee: 25 basis points (0.25%) of assets under management (AUM) are taken in MLN each time the fund processes a transaction.
Burn mechanism: Collected MLN is automatically burned, shrinking supply and putting upward pressure on price.
Dilution penalty: If a fund’s vault can’t cover the fee in MLN, shares are diluted by 50 basis points (0.5%). This encourages managers to keep enough MLN on‑hand.

As of October2025, one MLN trades around $7.72 with a daily volume of $7.5million. The token’s price has slipped 3.32% week‑over‑week but is still up 4.80% over the past seven days.

Key players and governance

The protocol’s development is led by Avantgarde Finance, a team that blends traditional finance experience with DeFi engineering. Governance decisions-like fee changes or new adapters-are voted on by MLN holders through the Melon Council DAO. The council also allocates grants to developers building on top of Enzyme, such as the Enzyme.Blue white‑label vault‑as‑a‑service offering. For options traders, the Enzyme.Myso suite provides on‑chain options protocols.

Enzyme vs. other DeFi asset‑management projects

Below is a quick snapshot of how Enzyme stacks up against three well‑known peers.

Fee & AUM comparison (2025 data)
Project	Native Token	Management Fee	AUM (USD)	Market Cap (USD)
Enzyme	MLN	0.25% (paid in MLN)	150M	≈1.1B
Yearn Finance	YFI	0.20% (paid in YFI)	285M	≈3.2B
Harvest Finance	FARM	0.15% (paid in FARM)	90M	≈650M
Bancor	BNT	0.30% (paid in BNT)	120M	≈900M

Enzyme’s fee is a touch higher than Harvest but lower than Bancor. Its AUM sits in the middle of the pack, and the MLN burn model gives it a built‑in scarcity advantage.

Low poly scene of Enzyme governance, risks, and institutional white‑label service.

How to get started with Enzyme

If you’re comfortable using a wallet like MetaMask, the onboarding flow looks like this:

Acquire some ETH for gas and buy MLN on a major exchange.
Visit the official Enzyme dashboard (ensure the URL ends in .finance).
Connect your wallet, then click “Create Fund”.
Fill in the fund name, choose a strategy type (e.g., long‑only, yield farming), and set the fee structure.
The platform will auto‑deploy a Hub contract, a Vault contract, and a Shares token.
Deposit ETH or any ERC‑20 token you want to manage, then start trading via the built‑in adapter contracts.
Keep a small MLN balance in the vault to cover the 0.25% access fee; the system will burn it automatically.

For institutions, the process adds a few steps: request a white‑label Enzyme.Blue instance, run a security audit on any custom adapters, and configure multi‑sig governance through the DAO.

Risks and considerations

Every crypto tool carries trade‑offs. Here are the main points you should weigh before committing capital.

Smart‑contract risk: Although Enzyme’s contracts have been audited, bugs can still surface. Keep a safety buffer in your vault.
Fee exposure: The 0.25% fee is taken in a token that can be volatile. Sudden price drops may erode your net returns.
Liquidity risk: Some niche assets may have low on‑chain liquidity, making large trades slippage‑heavy.
Regulatory outlook: Asset‑management protocols could attract tighter regulations, especially for institutional users.
Learning curve: The Hub‑Spokes model takes a few hours to grasp for newcomers. Tutorials and community chats help, but expect a short ramp‑up period.

Balancing these risks against Enzyme’s professional tooling often comes down to your investment horizon and technical confidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

What does the MLN token actually do?

MLN is the utility token that pays the protocol’s access fee, fuels the burn mechanism, and grants voting rights in the Melon Council DAO.

Can I create a fund without any coding knowledge?

Yes. The web UI guides you through fund creation step‑by‑step. You only need a crypto‑compatible wallet and some ETH for gas.

How are fees calculated and when are they taken?

A 0.25% fee of the total assets under management is assessed on each transaction and is paid in MLN. The contract automatically burns the tokens.

Is Enzyme suitable for institutional investors?

Absolutely. Enzyme.Blue offers white‑label services, compliance tooling, and a dedicated support channel for enterprises.

What happens if my fund can’t pay the MLN fee?

The vault’s share balance is diluted by 0.5%. This protects the network from unpaid usage and nudges managers to keep MLN on‑hand.

1 Comments

Liam Wells
October 8, 2025 AT 22:05

Enzyme (MLN) purports to deliver a decentralized asset management protocol, yet the underlying fee architecture warrants meticulous scrutiny; the 0.25% access fee, denominated in MLN, is automatically burned, thereby exerting a deflationary pressure on the token supply, which is ostensibly advantageous, but the practical ramifications are far more nuanced; the fee calculation, being contingent upon both assets under management and transaction volume, introduces a variable cost component that may erode net returns for institutional participants; further, the opacity of the smart‑contract implementation obscures the exact mechanism by which the burn is executed, raising concerns regarding auditability and potential exploitable vectors; the model also presupposes a sufficiently liquid MLN market to absorb continual token burns, an assumption that may falter under sustained high‑frequency trading; in addition, the governance structure, while ostensibly decentralized, is weighted heavily toward early token holders, thereby entrenching a power asymmetry; the tokenomics, as delineated in the whitepaper, allocate a non‑trivial portion of future emissions to the foundation, which could dilute the intended scarcity effect created by the burns; moreover, the reliance on external price oracles for valuation introduces an additional layer of systemic risk, particularly in volatile market conditions; the fee schedule does not differentiate between passive and active strategies, thereby penalising low‑turnover portfolios that would otherwise benefit from a stable fee regime; the cumulative effect of these design choices suggests a misalignment between the protocol’s purported ethos of equitable asset management and the fiduciary realities faced by end‑users; additionally, the burn mechanism, while aesthetically appealing, fails to address the broader liquidity concerns inherent in a token that serves both utility and speculative functions; further analysis reveals that the projected revenue streams for token stakers are predicated on optimistic assumptions regarding transaction growth; should market activity stagnate, the incentive structure may become untenable, precipitating a cascade of token sell‑offs; the protocol’s documentation lacks a comprehensive risk assessment pertaining to regulatory scrutiny, particularly in jurisdictions where token burning may be construed as a contravention of securities regulations; finally, the paucity of independent third‑party audits exacerbates the opacity, rendering a thorough risk‑adjusted appraisal infeasible.