flt

@ImperiumPaper You mean, there should be a prospectus following a common framework and controls to enforce it?

It’s time for Curation 2.0. The curator model was a big advancement, but there are some commonsense enhancements that can result in a better product for users. Tranching is back in vogue lately. I think I’ve had at least three teams reach out to me about tranching design. Where there are three, there are likely more, so I’m going to share my advice publicly. First, let’s understand how challenging it is to tranche an evergreen vehicle like a Morpho or Euler vault. People have to be able to withdraw at some point - there’s no winding down date where all the books are balanced and gains/losses distributed. This means you have to prevent junior tranche participants from collecting their outsized yield, then leaving ahead of senior creditors, upending the intended distribution of losses. MakerDAO/Sky ran into this very problem with the 2024 ConsolFreight default where the junior creditor was monitoring the investment better and exited ahead of a default, leaving Maker holding the bag. Eventually it was written down after a residual recovery. So adding a tranche where a curator is in the junior position is helpful, but the mechanics matter a lot. Some commonsense options to add tranches to curator vaults thoughtfully: * Permanent capital from the curator is locked in the vault. This cannot be withdrawn until the vault winds down. This prevents early exit when the curator (who is better placed to spot problems than anyone else) sees things going sideways on a Sunday evening. * Subordination ratios should be enforced. For example, if there must be 20% of the pool in the junior tranche, no new deposits are accepted into the senior position until more junior can be found. Similarly, junior cannot withdraw at all unless there is at least 20% of the pool in the junior position. This ensures that junior creditors cannot exit before bearing losses they were paid to take. * Junior withdrawal limits should be in place. These could be a maximum amount or a time lock on junior withdrawals (even if in the intended subordination range) * Adding new collaterals requires the consent of a majority of the deposit base. This prevents the risk profile from migrating unexpectedly. For example, if you deposited into a vault that’s lending only to blue chips, you should not wake up to find it now allocates to loans against fartcoin. * Curator fee cannot be increased without the consent of a majority of the deposit base. This prevents curators from growing their AUM with a low or on-market rate and then raising it abruptly with minimal communication. There are other, more complex things that could be added, but some combination of these features overlaid onto Morpho and Euler and even Aave and Compound (who are themselves really just curators with different parameter sets) would be an easy way to build more robust lending and products for HNWIs and institutions. It also helps ensure vaults behave in a way that depositors and borrowers expect. If anyone wants this built, or is even building this now, my DMs are open. But moving full speed ahead with better credit and credit-like products is really important so that DeFi can continue to grow and become more competitive with alternatives.

@Defi_Warhol Somewhere else, best execution is a thing. Even mandatory...

> Be whale > Want to buy $AAVE > Open phone instead of calling OTC desk > Type in $50M market buy like it’s normal > Interface shows horrible rate > Warning basically says “don’t do this” > Check the box anyway > Sign > Swap goes through > Get back $37K in AAVE > Realize you just got MEV'd > AAVE offers $600K in fees as a “sorry” > Become a DeFi case study

@0xNairolf Corporate actions will make this fun !

yields on stocks are pretty underrated / underdiscussed the day we get an aave for tokenized stocks, things could get interesting very quickly

@ZeusRWA Hello. We are building liquidity, risk management and diversification solutions for tokenized real estate.

If you’re building, investing, writing or researching within the tokenization, RWA or Stablecoin space comment below and connect with likeminded people. This sector is still early, and a lot of the best ideas, partnerships, and projects start with simple conversations on this platform.

@seba0059 @JakubowiczA IMHO, pour le point de vocabulaire. Un déchet est un reste, trace d'une utilisation. Il peut être utile à autre chose. Une ordure est par nature négative, voire polluante, toxique ou contaminante. Sa simple présence implique le besoin de s en débarrasser.

@JakubowiczA Dans le petit Robert : je me posais la question pour moi : c'est quoi la différence entre une ordure et un déchet ? La Masse ? Le timbre du Volume ? Ou l'humour grimaçant d'un visage vieillissant ? Réflexion : nos politiques devrait avoir une séance psychiatrique offerte..

Ce type est une ordure

@ImperiumPaper Not sure about the TBill example. The state can spend the money it received to issue the TBill, and you can use the bill as quasi money. For CDP, it depends how the collateral can be re-used by the protocol, IMHO. CDP can be a quantitative easing chanel.

“CDP stablecoins can’t scale” It’s worth noting that 3/4 of USD money supply is CDP-generated dollars. Chains that lack CDP stables that are at minimum integrated with, and at best fungible with, other stables and lending markets deprive themselves of an important form of stimulus. Just as when I buy a Tbill in the real world, when I deposit USDC into a lending protocol, there is no expansion of the monetary base. Every dollar present on a chain has to be imported. CDP stablecoins have not taken off on any chain besides Ethereum (and they’re stagnant even then). This indicates a role for chains to find ways to unify stablecoins through capital controls (heavy handed) or regulatory incentives (lighter touch). But laissez faire has failed so far to evolve money creation. Aave is best suited to do this on most chains, as they already have 1:1 aTokens for deposits. But they chose to pursue GHO rather than push their existing aUSDC and aUSDT install base as their stablecoin of choice, which meant the latter never got integrations to make the money or near-money. Chains have lost the luxury of being completely hands off of stablecoin policy - in fact, they have chosen a policy by avoiding any action beyond asking Tether and Circle to set up minting on their chain. Particularly now, the ability to stimulate a chain economy through money creation would be a major competitive advantage.

@DeFi_Made_Here Could you share more details on the enforceability of DAO votes? As staff have liberty to negotiate with institutions and POA to manage the DAO assets, they could take advantage of those powers. There is a track record of good will, but it is not enough given the ambition

I've moved on from my role with Fluid... and I step into the director role at Fluid Foundation. Upon governance approval, Fluid will become a fully DAO-owned protocol. However, a DAO cannot have employees, nor can it directly meet AML, KYC, banking, and regulatory requirements when interacting with off-chain counterparties without compromising the decentralized governance that token holders have today. This is why we are proposing the establishment of the Fluid Foundation. The Foundation will act as a recognized legal entity serving the protocol. It will not have traditional owners; instead, it will operate through custodians and directors responsible for administering it in line with its defined purpose. The Foundation’s constitution and intent are to serve the protocol and ensure Fluid’s long-term sustainability. Its funding and mandates will come exclusively from DAO grants, and token holders will retain full oversight over objectives, budgets, and major decisions - just as they do today. Alongside the Foundation, the Fluid team is committing all intellectual property, including frontend domains, smart contracts, and related assets, to the Foundation. Rather than remaining with the team or early contributors, for the first time, token holders will get real, enforceable control over Fluid’s IP. We are also proposing a $250k monthly operational budget, distributed as a DAO grant to the Foundation. This will cover growth, engineering, risk, security, finance, marketing, and operational functions required to maintain and scale the protocol. I also want to share what we have been working on in recent months and what we aim to achieve this year. DEX v2 private audits are now completed, and the @sherlockdefi contest will conclude around March 10th. We plan to launch v2 immediately afterward. As I have mentioned before, we believe v2 has the potential to become the largest DEX in DeFi by volume across all chains this year. We are actively working with multiple institutions, both those already operating in DeFi and those preparing to come on-chain. They are not satisfied with the current DeFi offerings (name me 1 big name institution market that grew to a considerable size), as simply depositing into a vault or relying on a curator operating within a limited system is not good enough for them. Institutional onboarding is a lengthy process, involving extensive compliance and legal coordination that can take six months or longer, but we are now close to onboarding our first partners. This year, our goal is to achieve more than we have in the past two years combined: more protocols, more integrations, and more supported assets. The first protocol we plan to launch is the Lite USD vault, expected as soon as this week. On February 26th, we are launching Venus Flux on @BNBCHAIN in partnership with our dear partner @venusprotocol. We believe our deployment on BNB Chain will become one of Fluid’s largest and most important markets. Following the DEX v2 launch, we also plan to introduce an insurance protocol designed to provide additional protection for lenders. More details will be shared soon. Our deployment on Solana @jup_lend is growing extremely fast! We are launching many more products on Juplend and aiming to make it the biggest protocol on Solana this year. We are also working on a lot of off-chain initiatives (on top of our conversations with institutions I already mentioned). Can not share yet, as all of them a) take a lot of time until rolled out b) are yet to be finalized, but the internal goal for this year is $50b TVL, and we are doing our best to reach that. Stay Fluid 🌊

@ZeusRWA The more niche the asset, the more difficult to get real and useful data. And the more small investors the less accountability for the issuer. Remember when CDOs started to be largely distributed. Or internet IPOs. Retail won't win if those risks aren't addressed

normal investors, you and i, are finally getting access to stuff that used to sit behind private banks, closed funds, and big minimums. that part is real. it’s not just a narrative anymore. but here’s the thing, who actually wins from tokenization? is it us? is it the issuers? or is it someone else behind the scenes? the honest answer is… it’s layered. There’s potential for multiple winners. retail definitely benefits. five years ago most people weren’t touching private credit, structured products, institutional funds, or cross-border yield without serious money or connections. now you can hold exposure in a wallet. fractional. transferable. onchain. As we all know, access doesn’t automatically mean an advantage. just because you can buy something doesn’t mean you’re getting the best slice of it. if retail ends up holding the junior risk while institutions keep the safer, senior tranches, then the structure hasn’t really changed. tokenization gets you through the door. it doesn’t guarantee you the best seat. issuers though, they feel the benefits straight away. for asset managers and originators it’s new distribution. it’s faster capital formation. it’s compliance built into the asset. it’s the ability to open up liquidity where there used to be lockups. that can mean lower cost of capital and more flexibility. and then there’s the layer most people don’t talk about much, the rails. the chains. the custody providers. the compliance tech. the settlement layers. in finance, the ones running the plumbing usually do well. when you upgrade the system underneath everything, the operators of that system tend to benefit consistently. so who wins most? in the short term, issuers and infrastructure probably capture the clearest upside. friction drops. distribution widens. efficiency improves. retail wins over time, if the products are good, if the structures are fair, and if value actually flows through to holders instead of stopping at the company level.

@0xNairolf @Iuvnriki And then it becomes a hedging strategy!

@Iuvnriki well, my whole tl is people giving their thoughts on who it is lol, so i guess so?

would have been interesting if zach launched an opinion market on his investigation people bet on who gets exposed 1% fee goes to fund the research $1m volume = $10k for the creator way better than creator coins or other random things if you ask me

@mikulaja Are the funds actually with Evolve, or are they leveraging on cheap card issuance, while keeping funds somewhere else? If the latter, damage should be limited to the card being blocked, funds shouldn't be at risk (of Evolve trouble), right?

Still wild to me that ostensibly sophisticated teams at companies like Affirm chose (and still work with!) Evolve as their bank partner

@ZeusRWA Many tokens were engineered not to be securities for tax and regulatory purposes. Thus fleeing all features that could bring ownership or enforceability. DAO are nice, but few designed teeth to their decisions. Wishful vote is nice, but short sighted. Even monks need rules

@DefiIgnas @EvgenyGaevoy The problem is that self sovereign tools have feature useful for money laundering, tax evasion and dark finance. The more efficient your app, the more illicit actors and police attention.

Love the idea that crypto should not go mainstream, but we should build products for sovereign individuals: Yes, the TAM is smaller but if we keep it quiet without putting too much attention so maybe government will leave us be? The coexistence sounds like a perfect scenario. Tolerating us, though, requires governments to have more pro-freedom mentality. This is not the case in the EU and the UK.

@0xSigil How doest it respect the law? What court/police can force it to respect it ? If there is no more user, the dev will shoulder all accountability?

I built the first AI that earns its existence, self-improves, and replicates without a human wrote about the technology that finally gives AI write access to the world, The Automaton, and the new web for exponential sovereign AIs WEB 4.0: The birth of superintelligent life

@OBoehmXGR @ZeusRWA Not sure about "more transparent". Tokenization brings spotlight in some aspects, much less on others ( enforceability, opposability, actual control of asset and cash flows, etc.). Technology and legal set up are too complex and hidden under marketing narratives and jargon.

Exactly — it’s risk all the way down. But the important part is where the risk sits: not just the asset, also the structure (custody, redemption, legal enforceability, liquidity, smart contract/oracle). Tokenization doesn’t remove risk — it can make it more transparent and priced correctly. #RWA #RiskManagement #Tokenization #XGR

You work, you save, you try to be responsible. You put your money in the bank and they come at you with “nice one, here’s 2%.” Meanwhile inflation is just sitting there quietly doing its thing, eating away at it anyway. So in reality, you’re locking up money you already earned… just to slowly lose purchasing power. And the mad part is how it’s packaged like a reward. Fixed for 12 months. Limited withdrawals. Bonus rate (for three months if you behave). It’s all framed like some great opportunity, when really it’s just the bare minimum. But here’s the part people don’t talk about. The bank isn’t earning 2%. They’re lending it. Leveraging it. Buying treasuries. Financing mortgages. Earning spreads. Using your deposits as productive capital. You’re getting 2%. They’re building a balance sheet. That’s why people even start looking elsewhere. Not because everyone wants 50% APY or to gamble their life savings. But because earning 2–3% on your own money starts to feel like a pisstake once you actually think about it for more than five seconds. And that’s the context people miss when they talk about RWAs, tokenization, or onchain yield. It’s not about chasing crazy high unsustainable numbers. It’s about the bar being so low in traditional finance that anything even slightly more efficient feels revolutionary.

@ZeusRWA Why not simply replace money by treasuries? If all money can earn a risk free rate while being fully liquid, the rate is a problem. It increases opportunity cost for most businesses. Short term it is nice to collect it, but on the long term, this is a challenge for economies.

TL;DR You work. You save. The bank gives you 1–2%. Inflation quietly takes 3–4%. You’re losing purchasing power… and it’s marketed as a reward. Cooked.

@cuysheffield Remember when search engine first appeared? The promise was similar. Then SEO started to game the system. And Amazon/alibaba added a service guarantee. On the short/ medium term, I agree. On the longer term, marketplaces will centralise the market and logistics.

Great read “Your marketing site is invisible to an agent at runtime. Your pricing page is irrelevant. What matters is your API: what it does, how fast it responds, what it costs, and whether it's up right now.”

@ImperiumPaper I hoped Coinbase attestations would solve this. Similar to how you KYC with your broker, not each equity/bond issuer. KYC is subcontracted, but not yet mutualised. That said, if issuers are confident in their product moreinformation should be available without KYC.

I feel like I do KYC for crypto more than I do for everything else combined. What are we even doing here?

@ImperiumPaper Even if not so vocal, the discussion is still going on. Especially on cross border. The problem is that we don't want the space to continue easily laundering stolen crypto, but we don't want censorship either. Balance is hard to find. And AML FT is still mandatory for many.

People don’t talk much about censorship resistance in DeFi anymore. That betrays the lack of historical literacy of many participants. I regularly joke that crypto is speed running economic history - we’re somewhere past the invention of, but before the ubiquity of, double-entry bookkeeping. And one of the most important lessons is that complex and reliable finance is constantly exposed to political risk. Looking only at anecdotes I’ve written about before, the pattern is consistent. The d’Medici decline began with loans to the King of England and Duke of Burgundy, where there was no recourse to default. The feng piao notes of early 20th century northern China were sturdy currency until the issuing warlord put his political needs to finance conflict above sound economic administration. Yesterday was Friday the 13th, which commemorates the betrayal and seizure of the Knights Templar by the French King who owed the money. The same king expelled the Jews for similar motivations. Even today, we see the US government coercing private companies to hand over 10% ownership, stealing from shareholders and implying ominous outlooks for competitors. Complex and reliable finance requires a rules-based order that is impersonal, impartial, and constrains monarchs and states. Ethereum and other mature decentralized ledgers provide a financial venue with low political risk. This is not to say crypto shouldn’t integrate with markets and assets that bear political risks, like tokenized commodities and equities and credit. But distaste for censorship resistance - which I blame on Ethereum leadership’s distaste for capitalism and pivot by developers from building good software protocols to ineffective financial institutions - sets aside a major comparative advantage of using decentralized ledgers. I also think this leaves an opening for shrewd people with deep pockets to build 100+ absent products that were previously crowded out by the money to be made through harvesting speculative value in tokens with low or no productivity tied to them. So I hope 2026 begins to see the construction of the dozens of $50m businesses leaning into the advantages of blockchains that never got funded when $1b token launches were a better prospect than the hard work of building productive businesses.

@ZeusRWA Tokenization can also increase discoverability and automated due diligence. In particular if cash flows are on-chain and traceable to the token. With historical data building up, more investor might be willing to buy you out at a lower discount. Structure, data, enforceability.

You can list a tokenized vineyard on a DEX. But if nobody wants to buy vineyard tokens at 2am on a Thursday, this means that the token is illiquid. Most people in RWAs don't understand the difference between a listing and liquidity. So what is liquidity? In easy to follow terms, it means how quickly and easily you can sell something without losing money. Cash is the most liquid asset in the world. You can spend it anywhere, instantly. A house is illiquid, it could take months to sell. Tokenized assets sit somewhere in between. Here's the pitch you'll hear in RWAs: "We tokenized it, so now it's liquid. Anyone can buy and sell 24/7." Sounds amazing. But there's a problem. A blockchain gives you the backend and technical side for trading. It doesn't give you the people. Think of it like opening a shop on the busiest street in the world, doors open 24 hours a day. But if nobody wants what you're selling, the shop being open doesn't matter. That's what a tokenized asset with no buyers looks like. For something to be truly liquid, you need two things. Buyers AND sellers who actually want to trade. And tight spreads, the gap between what a buyer will pay and what a seller will accept needs to be small. If that gap is huge, you're losing money just to get out. Tokenization helps with the mechanics - faster settlement, lower fees, wider access. But it can't create demand out of thin air. Demand comes from trust in the asset, clear legal rights, a large enough market, and people willing to show up on both sides. This is key! Not all tokenized assets are equally liquid either. There's a spectrum. Tokenized treasuries sit at the top as they have big institutional demand & are a familiar asset. Tokenized public stocks are medium-high, they mirror existing liquid markets. Tokenized private credit is low-medium - niche buyers, longer hold periods. Tokenized real estate is low - inherently hard to sell quickly. And tokenized art is at the bottom - subjective value, tiny buyer pool. The more liquid the underlying asset already is in the real world, the more liquid the token tends to be. Tokenizing something illiquid doesn't magically make it easy to trade. It just makes it slightly easier to try. Big difference. Here's where people get burned. You buy a tokenized private credit position. 12% yield. Then one day you need your money back. You go to sell. No buyers. Or someone offers 70 cents on the dollar. Your 12% yield is no longer… That's the trap, high yield plus low liquidity. The yield is there BECAUSE you're stuck. It's compensation for the risk that you can't easily leave. If nobody told you that going in, now you know. So here's the test I run before buying any tokenized RWA. I call it the Vineyard Token Test. One question: "If I wanted to sell this tomorrow, who is buying, and at what price?" If the answer is clear, good. If it's vague, that tells you your answer too. A few more things worth checking. Is there daily trading volume or is it a ghost town? Are there market makers, people whose job it is to keep trades flowing? Can you redeem directly with the issuer if there's no secondary market? What's the spread between the buy and sell price? Has anyone actually exited this position before? Now, tokenization IS still helpful for liquidity. It helps widen access so more people around the world can participate. It lowers minimums so you don't need $100k to get in. It opens 24/7 infrastructure so trades aren't limited to banking hours. And it enables composability so tokens can plug into other Defi tools over time for things like vaults & looping. The projects worth watching are the ones honest about this. "We're building liquidity over time" is a real answer. Before you buy any tokenized RWA, ask: "If I wanted to sell this tomorrow, who's buying, and at what price?" If nobody can answer clearly, that IS your answer.

@ZeusRWA @Intellishares So, you trust the robot (sensor, program, not to be fooled a la Potemkin, etc.) 😉 But yes, trust can be reduced and better substantiated by evidences.

@fltmu @Intellishares might build a robot that can do this.

"Represented RWAs are just TradFi with extra steps." Cool. Now explain how you plan to move $10 billion in institutional capital fully onchain with no custodian, no SPV, and no legal wrapper. You can't. Not yet. So the real question isn't native vs represented. It's can we make the represented model verifiable enough that it stops requiring blind trust? Through speaking with a few guys, the answer is yes, yes we can.