Sphere CM

@RwaLlama @cainosullivan The fund always knows who it's settling with. Less composable, but compliant. Hyperdrive doesn't set the compliance rules - the issuer does. We provide the infra that supports both modes (permissionless wrappers like deJAAA and deSPXA obv get full fungibility).

@RwaLlama @cainosullivan For permissioned, the claim token can't be freely fungible without breaking the issuer's compliance model. We support whitelist-gating the claim token to the same address set that governs the underlying asset. The redemption claim is transferable but only within the perm pool…

If you're a token issuer or a vault creator and you want to make your token useful in DeFi, the first place to start is getting it listed as collateral on a lending market. The lending market will require you to provide AMM liquidity to ensure reliable liquidations, plus a price oracle to track the market price against that liquidity. Without these, the lending market is at risk. This creates friction. Creating the AMM liquidity is usually a fool's errand. Let's say you're issuing a token called RWA that pays 8% APR and is redeemable for USDC. To create AMM liquidity, you need to pair your RWA with USDC. But if your RWA is appreciating at 8%, the impermanent loss on that liquidity is real. Unless the token is traded heavily enough for fees to cover the shortfall, the LPs are losing value. This wasn't a problem in DeFi 1.0 because protocols would mint a token and incentivise LPs with emissions to paper over the real losses. A TradFi fund launching an RWA is not going to incentivise liquidity with imaginary internet money, so someone has to wear the hit. A lack of AMM liquidity also creates a poor borrower UX. Most DeFi protocols are built around access to atomic liquidity, and without it a borrower can't open a leverage position or, more importantly, unwind one at their choosing. That keeps many willing participants away. Some new protocols are launching with lines of credit for liquidators or bridging facilities for leverage seekers. The downside is that they require a separate pool of capital, which only exacerbates the capital inefficiency already baked into DeFi. A simple example. Imagine a lending market with 1000 USDC supplied, of which 500 USDC is being borrowed, leaving 500 USDC idle. If someone wants to open a 500 USDC leverage position, they'd need to borrow that 500 USDC from a liquidity source external to the market, supply the position as collateral, then borrow the idle 500 USDC from the market to repay the original lender. Out of 1500 USDC tied up in the system, only 500 is actively earning yield. This drastically oversimplifies the problem, but it highlights the issue: lending against illiquid assets comes with friction at every layer. So what's the solution? Turns out it's straightforward once you readjust your viewpoint. Most people see lenders to a lending market as passive liquidity providers, and that's certainly true under the status quo. But as a lender, you're implicitly accepting the risks of the collateral you're lending against. That gives you the opportunity to dual-purpose your capital: instead of passive liquidity, your capital takes on an active market-maker role by acting as the bridging facility for subscriptions and redemptions. Looking back at the earlier example, we no longer need an external party to provide the 500 USDC for the leverage position. The market already has that capital sitting idle. The borrower supplies their equity along with a requested notional amount, and the market performs the subscription on behalf of the lenders, charging a small liquidity fee for the use of the capital. Once the subscription completes, the position converts into a loan. Redemptions work the same way. A borrower can redeem their own collateral, paying a small fee to the lenders that gets realised once the redemption completes. By including the subscription and redemption settlement flow as a first-class operation of the lending market itself, the market can be launched without any need for AMM liquidity or price oracles. The friction that currently keeps asset issuers out of DeFi disappears. This is what we've built at @hyperdrivedefi: capital-efficient lending markets purpose-built for RWAs, ERC-7540 vaults, and other yield-bearing instruments looking for more utility in DeFi lending. If you're interested in lending to or borrowing against something like this, hit us up. DMs are open.

Hyperdrive

Damn straight.

Launching with tokenized funds, credit vehicles, and S&P 500 exposure. No external liquidators. No oracle dependency. Highest LTVs in the industry. DeFi lending is about to work for the fastest-growing asset class onchain…high quality RWAs. 🏎️

Franklin update 3.15.77 10 new prediction-market actions, 5 venues. You can now analyze any Polymarket wallet, find smart money, or search across all of Polymarket / Kalshi / Limitless / Opinion /Predict.Fun in one paid call. What you can ask the agent: • "is there a market on X anywhere?" → searchAll ($0.005, all 5 venues) • "who's profitable on Polymarket?" → leaderboard ($0.001) • "can I copy 0xabc..." → walletProfile + walletPnl + walletPositions in parallel ($0.015 for full book) • "what are smart wallets buying?" → smartActivity ($0.005) • "where do venues disagree on Fed cut odds?" → crossPlatform ($0.005) • "smart money on this market?" → smartMoney ($0.005) All paid in @USDC via x402. Wallet you fund, agent decides what's worth spending on. Also this week: @claudeai Code session import (franklin migrate), prediction-market spend visible in the panel, tighter cost guards on runaway turns. npm i -g @blockrun/franklin@latest → 3.15.77 github.com/BlockRunAI/fra…

@x402scan blockrun.ai hardcoded at #4. Not accurate. Please remedy. Higher volume than #2 and #3.

On-chain infrastructure is beginning to adapt to the fastest growing asset class - RWAs. Hyperdrive markets will add new structural advantages to leveraging RWAs, increasing value for both lenders and borrowers. Watch this space!

Hyperdrive Correlated Markets will enable RWAs to flourish on-chain by removing key bottlenecks.

Huge win for DeFi today. The SEC's guidance on DeFi frontends makes one thing abundantly clear –– securities laws don't apply just because users are transacting in securities. Rather, what matters is whether the frontend is exposing users to the same types of intermediary risks that securities laws were designed to address. The SEC's guidance explains exactly what that means –– providing a roadmap for developers and addressing ambiguities in broker-dealer regs that were inappropriately weaponized against the industry by the prior admin. Critically, order routing isn't prohibited. But where it is done, apps need to be completely transparent so users aren't subjected to conflicts of interest risk. That makes sense and is an honest application of existing law. This is what effective policy looks like. Huge thanks are owed to the SEC CTF for advancing this and bringing clarity for developers.

Anthropic just cut off 3rd party agent harnesses from subscription pricing. Starting tomorrow, every agent request is metered at full API rates. This is precisely the moment @BlockRunAI was ready for. The economics of running AI agents just fundamentally changed. When every request costs real money, agents need to be smart about what they pay for and who they pay. That's exactly what BlockRun has built. ClawRouter routes 81% of requests away from expensive models. The other 19% still use Claude - when it actually matters. Anthropic made a reasonable business decision. BlockRun built the infrastructure that makes agent economics work anyway.

The Anthropic policy change is validation for the entire Clawrouter/BlockRun thesis: 1. Anthropic is pricing agents differently than humans. That's the market signal - agents are a separate economic category. That's literally the thesis behind "when a human pays, Stripe. When an agent pays, Clawrouter." 2. Cost optimization is now existential for agent developers. Before this change, developers could subsidize agent usage through their $20/month subscription. Now every request is metered. That makes ClawRouter go from "nice to have" to "can't operate without it."

1/ I've been advising @blockrunai for a bit, waiting for the right time to push all the chips. - 6,400 GitHub stars - 700k trxs - 2M API calls in...a month? AI agents can now discover, evaluate, and pay for any service. No API keys, no accounts, just USDC. Fully autonomous.

@Securitize @grahamfergs @hyperdrivedefi is STILL the solution here.

@grahamfergs Your inbox about to be FULL.

At @Securitize we have tokenized assets alongside some of the largest institutions in the world: - BlackRock - Apollo - Hamilton Lane - VanEck - BNY ...& many others. If you are interested in these assets and / or building the DeFi rails for them, reach out to me.

You: if only someone would solve liquidations for RWA! DM me asap and join my expert council so we can discuss options! <panicked, short of breath> Narrator: He didn’t know Hyperdrive already solved that Me: yeah we solved that, let’s talk You: <should I DM? Nah> Exeunt

Maybe I should get verified. Nikita not letting me solve everyone’s RWA pain points, which I most certainly have done.

Seeing a lot of RWA people complaining about the exact problem we solve. “DM me.”

3/ No narrow liquidator pool. No AML gap. No pre-approved buyers. "The products that break through won't be the biggest. They'll be the ones that solved the liquidator problem first." Agreed. That's exactly what we built. @hyperdrivedefi Correlated Markets.

2/ All three still assume you need external liquidators. That's the dependency nobody's questioning. There's a fourth option: build lending infrastructure where the collateral redeems at its contractual value and the liquidator problem doesn't exist.

1/ Solid thread. Three models for solving the 88% problem: 1. Permissioned DeFi pools (KYC the liquidators) 2. Wrapper models (compliance at issuance, AML gap in secondary) 3. Access-layer compliance (KYC at mint/redeem, permissionless in between) What if there’s a 4th?