Good morning, sisters.
Today I took a look at the data of
#USD1 and
#USDC on
#Dolomite , and it feels pretty interesting.
Under the same liquidation parameters, USD1 utilization is 51.6%, while USDC is 79.4%โa difference of 28 percentage points. This suggests people prefer borrowing USDC more, the issue isnโt the rules but the real demand.
Before, when looking at stablecoins, I also tended to check market cap and backing first. But now I realize utilization is more like the real โvoteโ at the lending/borrowing end: money sitting in a pool versus money that gets borrowed out and reusedโcompletely different things.
@worldlibertyfiโs USD1 supply and entry ramp is moving pretty fast, but the borrowing demand in Dolomite hasnโt caught up fully yet. Thatโs not necessarily a bad thingโthereโs still buffer in the pool, withdrawal pressure is lower, and the supplier-side APR wonโt be too sensitive.
Back in April, the WLFI treasury put about 3.0 billion
$WLFI as collateral and borrowed 50.44 million
$USD1 โutilization jumped straight to 93%-100%, and the supplier APR peaked at 35.81%. Once demand came in, the interest rates responded quickly.
This time, the USDC side is borrowing even more clearly. Recently, about 484 million WLFI was deposited as collateral to borrow USDC. The USDC pool APY briefly reached 13.5%, and the Dolomite Ethereum USDC 30-day average supply yield is around 9.07%.
This makes me feel like, in the end, stablecoins arenโt really judged by who issues more or whose story sounds better. Itโs whether, in DeFi, they can be actively borrowed by more peopleโused up, and then paid back.
As USD1 supply expands, the next thing to watch is whether natural borrowing demand can grow on its own, instead of relying only on points, Merkl incentives, and ZAP loop hot pools.
High utilization means high yields, but risk rises with it too. Even if itโs a bit lower, thatโs fineโit leaves some breathing room for the system.