letsgetonchain

2K posts

letsgetonchain

letsgetonchain

@letsgetonchain

Everything onchain capital markets.

Katılım Eylül 2024
511 Takip Edilen2.5K Takipçiler
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
duration tells a depositor what the max wait to withdrawals could be. its not about what you are absorbing. the underwritten collateral set tells you what you are absorbing. so if you deposit in a vault that advertises durations of up to say a year and a certain collateral set, you know as a depositor that you absorbing duration risk wrt any of these assets up to a year in the worst case scenario.
English
0
0
2
32
Prince
Prince@0xPrince·
@letsgetonchain if the duration label is only about liquidity timing, then it was never an answer to the underwriting problem. duration tells you how long you might have to hold, not what you’re absorbing while you hold it.
English
1
0
0
55
Prince
Prince@0xPrince·
Vaults aren't the right structure for fixed-rate markets. A fixed-rate loan is a specific piece of risk. There's a borrower, collateral, a maturity, a liquidity profile, and a price for taking it on. In a vault, the depositor picks none of that. You put money into a pool and quietly become the counterparty to whatever loans the vault funds. And the two sides don't actually match. The borrower has a fixed rate locked in until maturity. The depositor still thinks they can withdraw whenever they want. But that duration risk doesn't disappear. It just sits with whoever is still in the vault when everyone wants liquidity at once. Bad debt is the same story. One position blows up and the loss gets socialized across everyone, including people who would never have touched that collateral if you'd asked them directly. Fixed-rate lending needs a real counterparty on the other side. Someone who accepted the terms, took the risk on purpose, and is getting paid for it. A vault isn't that counterparty. It just hides who is actually underwriting the debt.
English
15
4
53
8.7K
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
@0xPrince why would duration change who eats the bad debt? no matter the duration, instant or longer term you eat bad debt if collateral is underwater.. duration label is only intended to signal to the depositor how long liquidity can stay locked up.
English
1
0
1
73
Prince
Prince@0xPrince·
@letsgetonchain exactly, the depositor eats the bad debt and duration doesn’t change that. that’s the whole issue, the duration label doesn’t solve who underwrites the loss. delegation is fine as a choice, but it still means you’re absorbing risk someone else priced.
English
2
0
0
61
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
the reason somebody deposits into a fund is to delegate control of what is being underwritten. If you want control you deposit directly into a market I don’t understand how bad debt here relates to duration. If there is bad debt you eat it as a depositor. That is independent of the underlying duration
English
1
0
1
78
Prince
Prince@0xPrince·
@letsgetonchain that works for orderly exits, but not when a position defaults before maturity. “don’t roll it over” does nothing once the loss is already realized, the depositor still eats it. max duration only controls when you can leave, not what you’re underwriting while you’re in.
English
1
0
0
55
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
why would you need one vault per duration per collateral? it doesnt matter which collateral as long as the funds duration is respected a vault manager can advertise a max duration to which he exposes the fund. if you request a withdrawal, your max time-to-redemption (in the worst case scenario) is that duration. if there are pending withdrawals the manager simply doesn't roll those over
English
1
0
1
76
Prince
Prince@0xPrince·
doesn’t really work like that. to actually enforce a duration you’d need one vault per duration per collateral, and that fragments liquidity so bad it kills the whole point. and target duration is just a target anyway. the moment a vault holds mixed maturities or has to roll positions, the depositor’s real duration drifts from whatever was advertised. you’re back to holding risk you didn’t pick.
English
1
0
2
236
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
gave @Morpho Midnight a try today. quite exciting to see the beginning of fixed rate borrowing onchain. @pendle_fi solved transforming variable rate into fixed rate for lenders. But borrow demand is not where it should be given the attractive borrow rates we see across various repo markets A major reason is that the borrower needs predictability, something utilization based rates don't offer Its easy to illustrate this on a leveraged carry trade the chart below shows the carry (delta between collateral APY and debt APY) of @re 's reUSD and the USDC borrow rate on that market. Its extremely volatile. it gives zero predictability in expected payoff and forces the looper to take a more conservative leverage, as negative carry at leverage quickly eats into your equity. this is not attractive. when engaging into a leveraged carry trade the investor should only care about assessing the quality of the collateral asset. not the volatility in carry determining his realized returns. picture the chart below with a PT fixed rate asset and a fixed rate borrow. Its a straight line! you know exactly what you get. you know your reward. your job is only to assess the risk of the collateral. you enter the trade if the risk reward corresponds to your requirement. Fixed rates is the next leg of growth for DeFi and imo will help stimulate the currently lacking demand for borrowing also mentioned here x.com/ImperiumPaper/… Chart below taken from @credditxyz
letsgetonchain tweet media
PaperImperium@ImperiumPaper

DeFi is where: * Lenders get sub-risk-free rates for risky lending * Borrowers are apparently unable to run profitable trades like “borrow at less than tbills and buy a tbill” * Active, multi-strategy credit funds with struggle to provide yield competitive with an FDIC-insured savings account What are we even doing here? Are we all just trapped onchain with no way out? Even if the lenders are stuck, why are the borrowers not able to sustain very low borrow rates by real-world standards? And it’s not like we even built a DeFi that does what it was built for, which might justify the friction and low capacity for competent capital allocation. We were all on the censorship resistant, permissionless finance highway, and then the wannabe hedge fund guys grabbed the wheel and drove us into the ditch because “non-custodial software” didn’t earn them performance fees for underperforming Treasuries. It’s not even that centralized entities or replicating many TradFi structures onchain is sinful or shameful. They’re not. DeFi, CeFi, and TradFi can coexist. It’s that the onchain economy is apparently so unhealthy that the only way to remotely give lenders a reward in line with risk is via massive subsidies. All these gigantic Earn initiatives are money flowing the wrong way, swamping an already overcapitalized DeFi market where we apparently are incapable of scaling any product that’s not minute-by-minute margin or perps, the latter of which is zero-to-negative-sum and closed off from composability, so may as well be offchain from a macro perspective. RWAs were supposed to save us by letting yield flow from offchain markets to investors onchain. But all we got were “tokenized tbills” that were just nosebleed fees slapped onto a money market fund. I’m still waiting for these actual tbills so I can build a ladder of them without paying a middleman or three 60 bps of the 360 bps tbill yield. One gets the impression that onchain markets are only kept from draining into the real world by an invisible dam of CEXs’ and banks’ arbitrary freezing of funds keep people scared to off-ramp. DPRK can get the money out somehow but there’s not enough borrowers able to withstand a sub-5% borrow rate? Either there’s free money on the sidewalk or something is busted.

English
2
3
22
2.9K
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
Quality RWA issuers will conduct efforts to come on chain when they see that they can scale their AUM at scale. In that sense I think the overcapitalization is positive in that it solves the chicken and egg problem on the supply side. Fixed rate borrowing is about to be launched by morpho and many others are actively working on it. Think what we are seeing is a temporary rather then structural problem. The lack of borrowing might also be a skill issue, lots of very attractive levered carry trades out there.
English
0
0
0
98
PaperImperium
PaperImperium@ImperiumPaper·
DeFi is where: * Lenders get sub-risk-free rates for risky lending * Borrowers are apparently unable to run profitable trades like “borrow at less than tbills and buy a tbill” * Active, multi-strategy credit funds with struggle to provide yield competitive with an FDIC-insured savings account What are we even doing here? Are we all just trapped onchain with no way out? Even if the lenders are stuck, why are the borrowers not able to sustain very low borrow rates by real-world standards? And it’s not like we even built a DeFi that does what it was built for, which might justify the friction and low capacity for competent capital allocation. We were all on the censorship resistant, permissionless finance highway, and then the wannabe hedge fund guys grabbed the wheel and drove us into the ditch because “non-custodial software” didn’t earn them performance fees for underperforming Treasuries. It’s not even that centralized entities or replicating many TradFi structures onchain is sinful or shameful. They’re not. DeFi, CeFi, and TradFi can coexist. It’s that the onchain economy is apparently so unhealthy that the only way to remotely give lenders a reward in line with risk is via massive subsidies. All these gigantic Earn initiatives are money flowing the wrong way, swamping an already overcapitalized DeFi market where we apparently are incapable of scaling any product that’s not minute-by-minute margin or perps, the latter of which is zero-to-negative-sum and closed off from composability, so may as well be offchain from a macro perspective. RWAs were supposed to save us by letting yield flow from offchain markets to investors onchain. But all we got were “tokenized tbills” that were just nosebleed fees slapped onto a money market fund. I’m still waiting for these actual tbills so I can build a ladder of them without paying a middleman or three 60 bps of the 360 bps tbill yield. One gets the impression that onchain markets are only kept from draining into the real world by an invisible dam of CEXs’ and banks’ arbitrary freezing of funds keep people scared to off-ramp. DPRK can get the money out somehow but there’s not enough borrowers able to withstand a sub-5% borrow rate? Either there’s free money on the sidewalk or something is busted.
PaperImperium tweet media
English
16
6
89
30.2K
Nick Forster | Derive
Nick Forster | Derive@nickforster·
What can you actually do with a tokenized equity? - 24/7 trading (coming to all mkts soon) - Borrow against them (this is useful) - Lend them out (enjoy your 0.05% per year) Most assets have a lending rate of <10bps - you simply can't wring yield from them. Options change that. They allow you to generate yield from an asset's volatility - all you need is an opinion. They are evergreen and scalable. Structured products on tokenized equities is one of the biggest opportunities in a fully tokenized world. Derive v3 is built for this.
Seraphim@MacroMate8

there are a few ways to generate yield on stocks: - lend them out to shorts - options on top (covered call) any others that come to mind?

English
7
7
52
4.9K
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
@hexonaut I see, what is the difference in risk/reward between spUSDC or sUSDS?
English
1
0
1
31
Sam MacPherson
Sam MacPherson@hexonaut·
Very cool integration from our friends at Galaxy! Spark aims to deliver the best risk-adjusted yields in DeFi by combining RWA and crypto-backed lending. Spark Savings is built to serve as a highly liquid backing asset for products like this one.
Galaxy@galaxyhq

We just launched GOFR — the Galaxy Onchain Financing Rate. For the first time, institutions can access a single, continuously rebalanced rate across Aave, Morpho, Spark, and more. Dynamically optimized in real time and rebalanced across DeFi venues, a single Galaxy Rate.

English
3
0
21
2.4K
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
@hexonaut thanks. so currently it sits mostly in USDS who's backing simply sky's asset side of its BS?
English
1
0
1
30
Sam MacPherson
Sam MacPherson@hexonaut·
@letsgetonchain Spark Savings is backed by USDS. You can toggle the detailed view to see what USDS is backed by. Some of that backing includes the SLL which you can see in detail here: data.spark.fi
English
1
0
1
63
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
why would this liquidity form by itself? I agree that issuers should rather allocate to productive assets than holding idle liquidity as a buffer I think the best way for issuers (to guarantee liquidity , needed for composability) is to mandate specialized player to provide it Such players need to have the profile to take on duration risk its a good opportunity imo, I am not aware of many such services. I know Fluid offers this already x.com/JackN1x/status…
Jack@JackN1x

@beeshal sounds like a big time saver. curious about the details!

English
0
0
1
105
Sonya Kim
Sonya Kim@sonyasunkim·
Hot take: Tokenized asset issuers shouldn't bake liquidity sleeves into the asset. It just erodes native yield and makes the asset less attractive. If the underwriting is sound and the risk/reward is compelling, liquidity will form around the asset on its own. Let composability do the work.
English
27
7
103
14.3K
molson 🧠⚙️
molson 🧠⚙️@Molson_Hart·
Today I learned that it is quite common for banks to pay a higher dividend % than they pay interest on their deposits, which once again shows that it’s better to be a bank than to be their “customer”.
molson 🧠⚙️@Molson_Hart

Banks: - structurally perma-bankrupt - charge fees on your deposits which they borrow - have almost zero costs, maintain a spreadsheet - constantly get bailed out by the government - financialize economies, lowering productivity - most respected career in almost every country

English
13
6
86
11.1K
lito
lito@litocoen·
im not usually a ‘tech in every domain of my life’ guy but meat thermometers are pretty cool
lito tweet medialito tweet media
English
16
0
60
7.8K
letsgetonchain
letsgetonchain@letsgetonchain·
@tumilet @hosseeb @maraoz To be fair count is high because tons of small projects without security budgets or sometimes even lacking active maintenance get hacked. Not a good proxy for DeFi safety
English
1
0
1
87
Haseeb >|<
Haseeb >|<@hosseeb·
It's been two months since @maraoz made this DeFi doom call. Since then, GLM 5.2, Fable, and GPT 5.6 have all shipped and are all being used in the wild by attackers. The data is in. It's time to call it: the DeFi "hackpocalypse" was a false alarm. It's more than half-way through the year and annualized $ hacked in DeFi in 2026 is lower than 2025 year, and well within historical range. The deeper story is that while the NUMBER of hacks has spiked, the SIZE of hacks fell even more. This means attackers are picking off small protocols and abandonware, the ones that can't afford to AI-harden their code. But large protocols have done the AI-hardening, and they're actually pretty secure now. Lesson: the average dollar in DeFi is as safe as it was a year ago. If you keep your money in large protocols that can afford to harden themselves, you'll likely be fine.
Haseeb >|< tweet media
Manuel Aráoz@maraoz

PSA: I now consider *all* of DeFi unsafe. Coding agents are superhuman at finding vulnerabilities, and smart contract security is too asymmetric: defenders need to fix every bug while attackers need just one exploit to steal funds.

English
38
27
272
62.7K
Makima
Makima@0xMakima_·
oh @CapApp points program is only going to give out the full airdrop to YT holders because "we have to make YT holders whole"? x.com/caplabslimited… let's see who is their largest YT buyer.. ah its 0x23d0f8944468F79FB06850c136a0E6B3Ee4a450F! 19m YTs bought over 21-28 dec which turns out to be "@QiDaoProtocol Working capital account 2" aka founder @Benjamin918_ this is pathetic, you have got to cover your tracks much more thoroughly. i am happy to offer you a lesson for $4.2m cUSD i typically am only slightly suspicious of projects buying their YTs but basically pocketing the whole airdrop is actually a first @apyx_fi watch and learn since you have such a massive supply of YTs ICO committers really just put $ in the @CapApp team's hands (@Benjamin918_ and @defidave, surprised at the latter who i thought was upright, guess not)
Makima tweet mediaMakima tweet mediaMakima tweet media
Cap Labs Limited@caplabslimited

x.com/i/article/2075…

English
65
53
349
119.1K