All three spot prices are falling, and I’d rather untangle a few things in DeFi: where do the interest and fees users pay ultimately go? Rolling 24 hours, $ETH -3.71%. Rolling 24 hours, $AAVE -8.45%. Rolling 24 hours, $UNI -7.07%. These are changes in the respective spot prices, not protocol revenue, deposit returns, or token-holder benefits; their falling together doesn’t explain one another.
According to a report by Jinse Finance at 2026-10-24 Beijing time, X100 on Ethereum came under attack. The attack was still ongoing when Blockaid issued its alert, and two transactions had siphoned off approximately 4.85 million USDT. This is a security incident involving X100, not news about Aave or Uniswap, and it cannot explain the declines in the three tokens. It reminds me that before discussing returns, we should at least understand what mechanisms protect funds and governance powers.
In lending, interest paid by borrowers is the cost of using funds; how much suppliers can earn depends on the specific market mechanism. Whether a protocol charges fees and how those fees are distributed are separate matters. Fee revenue does not automatically mean dividends for token holders, and token incentives do not mean protocol revenue has increased. Calling all of these things “returns” makes it easy to conflate the interests of users with those of token holders.
The same goes for fees paid when trading: user payments, protocol revenue, and token utility are not the same thing. Even if a mechanism uses fees for buybacks or burns, that doesn’t mean holders receive cash directly; if it is still only a governance proposal, it certainly shouldn’t be counted as already implemented. To judge who benefits, we need to check where the fees come from, where they go, and what specific rights token holders actually have.
Prices can tell me that market quotes have changed, but they can’t testify on behalf of a protocol’s books. Ordinary users should ask: under what rules can I get back the money I lent, and what did I get in exchange for the fees I paid? Separating and checking balances, fees accrued over time, incentives, and token-holder rights is far more reliable than seeing prices fall and guessing that the protocol is earning less.
According to a report by Jinse Finance at 2026-10-24 Beijing time, X100 on Ethereum came under attack. The attack was still ongoing when Blockaid issued its alert, and two transactions had siphoned off approximately 4.85 million USDT. This is a security incident involving X100, not news about Aave or Uniswap, and it cannot explain the declines in the three tokens. It reminds me that before discussing returns, we should at least understand what mechanisms protect funds and governance powers.
In lending, interest paid by borrowers is the cost of using funds; how much suppliers can earn depends on the specific market mechanism. Whether a protocol charges fees and how those fees are distributed are separate matters. Fee revenue does not automatically mean dividends for token holders, and token incentives do not mean protocol revenue has increased. Calling all of these things “returns” makes it easy to conflate the interests of users with those of token holders.
The same goes for fees paid when trading: user payments, protocol revenue, and token utility are not the same thing. Even if a mechanism uses fees for buybacks or burns, that doesn’t mean holders receive cash directly; if it is still only a governance proposal, it certainly shouldn’t be counted as already implemented. To judge who benefits, we need to check where the fees come from, where they go, and what specific rights token holders actually have.
Prices can tell me that market quotes have changed, but they can’t testify on behalf of a protocol’s books. Ordinary users should ask: under what rules can I get back the money I lent, and what did I get in exchange for the fees I paid? Separating and checking balances, fees accrued over time, incentives, and token-holder rights is far more reliable than seeing prices fall and guessing that the protocol is earning less.