web3空投姐

888

Good morning, ladies!

I saw that in the @worldlibertyfi H1 recap, the USD1 circulating supply was once at a peak of about 5.3 billion. But now CoinGecko shows around 4.3 billion. I’m not in a rush to judge good or bad—I’ll first align the timelines.

These two figures differ by roughly 1 billion. It looks like they may not be from the same moment. 5.3 billion is a peak from some point in the past, while 4.3 billion is a real-time snapshot of today. Stablecoins work like this: if someone mints supply, it goes up; if someone redeems, it contracts. That’s totally normal.

And since it’s already running on eight or more chains, inter-chain transfers, exchange inventory adjustments, and platform data updates not syncing up can easily cause the two pages to temporarily not match. Simply subtracting the number only shows the water level changed—but how the water actually changed still needs to be investigated properly.

If you really want to figure out where that 1 billion went, you’d have to pull together the last 30 days’ minting, burning, net redemptions, and supply changes across each chain, and then view it all on a single timeline. Which chain is increasing, which is decreasing—whether it was truly burned, moved across chains, or merely shifted between addresses—all have to line up. Missing any step can easily turn normal flow into something that looks like a big problem.

But more than the supply amount itself, what I care about right now is this: after those USD1 are minted, are they genuinely being used in lending, trading, and settlement? Or is most of it just sitting idle among a few big addresses? When users want to exit, can they redeem smoothly and without trouble?

Sure, supply going up shows growth—but when supply drops, being able to clearly explain redemptions, burns, and where the money went also says a lot. A reliable dollar system can’t just know how to pull money in—it also has to make sure money can go out properly. It should be able to expand and also account for contraction clearly, so the market can feel at ease.

As for where the current 1 billion went, relying only on the official peak and a single platform snapshot really doesn’t cover it all. It could be normal redemptions, burns, cross-chain adjustments, or normal fund flows—or it could be a mix of statistical differences and delays. A drop in numbers isn’t scary. What’s scary is a drop with no one able to explain what happened.

When you look at stablecoins in your day-to-day, are you more focused on how high they’re able to surge—or on whether, during the withdrawal/“tide going out” moment, every unit of money can be accounted for properly?

Good morning, sisters!

Today happens to coincide with the final deadline for the GENIUS Act rulemaking. I straightened out my USD1, and then realized that after a stablecoin reaches a multi-billion-dollar scale, what everyone cares about comes down to just a few things—who is issuing it, where the reserves are kept, and who’s responsible when things go wrong.

These directly affect our ability to redeem the money we hold, whether it’s safe, and whether institutions will dare to use it for large amounts.

With the GENIUS Act hitting its deadline today, the provisions that sound like documents—1:1 reserves, periodic attestations, management certifications, AML—will ultimately land on how it works in practice for us. Will redemptions be smooth? Will institutions be willing to mint in large size? Can the platform treat it as collateral? And if there’s a dispute, is there a clearly defined accountable party? All of that depends on how the rules get implemented.

Putting USD1 back under @worldlibertyfi, the current structure is still pretty clear. It’s still issued by BitGo Trust Company. World Liberty Trust has submitted an application to the OCC for a national trust bank charter, but it’s still pending.

If the application is ultimately approved, what I’ll be watching won’t just be four words about charter benefits. I’ll look at the entire chain—issuance, redemption, reserve management, custody, and settlement—and whether it can be placed into a clearer regulatory framework. Whether institutions are willing to put bigger sums in often comes down to whether that responsibility chain is complete enough.

Now USD1 isn’t just sitting in wallets and exchanges. It has moved into multi-chain usage, lending, and institutional minting, and it even shows up in trading and quoting scenarios. The wider the usage, the harder it is to maintain trust relying only on branding and campaigns—the system must be able to answer: after the money leaves, who takes it back and is responsible for it.

Of course, the boundaries also need to be clear. A national trust bank isn’t the same as a typical commercial bank, and USD1 won’t automatically become FDIC-insured bank deposits just because the issuer is chartered. A charter can add certainty, but liquidity, operational risk, and compliance risk still exist.

So when I pick a stablecoin now, I don’t just focus on APY. Returns can be used to subsidize, and liquidity can be purchased—but it’s hard to “buy” a clear responsibility chain with temporary promotions. When two stablecoins offer similar returns, will you consider who’s responsible for issuance and redemption before you think about APY?

HertzFlow @Hertzflow_xyz just launched the Referee Leaderboard recently.

When many people see it for the first time, they’ll probably think it’s yet another invite-earning activity.

But I think what’s really interesting this time isn’t the invitation codes themselves—it’s that HertzFlow is trying to solve one of Web3’s longstanding headaches: how to turn a single connection into a relationship that keeps generating transactions later on.

Most referrals before were simply about rewarding you for bringing someone in. The problem is, when a wallet registers, it doesn’t mean that person will actually trade in the future. As a result, addresses get referred in greater numbers, but real interaction keeps decreasing.

This time, HertzFlow ties referrals closely to actual trading. After a user binds a valid code, in Normal mode they can get a trading-fee discount. The commission that the referrer receives comes directly from the recommended user’s actual paid transaction fees.

Even more importantly, tier upgrades aren’t based on how many people you bring—it looks at both the number of Active Referees and the trading volume over the past 30 days. In other words: what you bring isn’t just a bunch of addresses, but whether these relationships truly move afterward.

With the Referee Leaderboard now live, this becomes even more intuitive. Data that used to be hidden in the backend is now openly displayed, so everyone can see who is genuinely maintaining the relationships—and who just invites and runs.

For regular users, the actions aren’t complicated. If you want to save on fees, you bind someone else’s code. If you want to build your own, you create a code and slowly grow your network.

That said, it’s still on Testnet for now. Whether it will be exactly the same on Mainnet depends on how the official team updates it later. Also, the commission comes from real transaction fees, not a fixed income—and the trading risks remain the same.

Personally, what I want to see most isn’t who climbs to #1 on the leaderboard. It’s whether, after the initial hype fades, those users connected through referrals will keep staying on the platform and trading.

Because true, sustainable growth has never been about who invited the most people—it’s about who ultimately leaves behind a group of people who genuinely trade.

Seeing the notice that 9Summits is sunsetting this fxUSD Agentic Vault, many friends’ first reaction might be: “The vault won’t allow new deposits anymore—so should we rush and withdraw the money?”

Actually, the easiest point to misunderstand here is precisely this.

On July 14, 9Summits issued an announcement saying that on Base, the fxUSD Agentic Vault will stop accepting new deposits, and they also reminded users who are borrowing fxUSD in markets such as VVV, cbBTC, wstETH, and VIRTUAL to repay their debts as soon as possible.

I understand this isn’t because fxUSD is retreating from Morpho, nor is there something wrong with the f(x) Protocol itself. It’s because a specific vault curated by 9Summits is entering a shutdown process—so the exit timelines naturally differ between the borrowing side and the deposit side.

When many people encounter something like this for the first time, they take “stopping deposits” and “everyone needs to withdraw” as the same thing. But in a structure like Morpho, the money is not just sitting there quietly. 9Summits handles the curation; Morpho runs the underlying lending market; and fxUSD is the asset used for borrowing within it.

As of now, from the frontend, this vault’s TVL is still around $379,000, and the utilization rate in the VVV/FXUSD market has already reached 99.78%. After stopping new deposits, no new money can come in. If borrowers don’t repay promptly, market liquidity could tighten further, and the cost of borrowing may continue to rise.

So why remind borrowers first? Because after they return the fxUSD, those funds can flow back into the market again—allowing the vault to complete the quota adjustment and the subsequent exit process. Depositors are waiting now; it’s not that their money is gone—it’s that their portion of liquidity has been allocated to the underlying market, and it needs to be released before it can be withdrawn.

This is also one of the ways DeFi is quite different from traditional finance. Often, if you want to exit, it’s not as simple as clicking a button—you need to see exactly where your funds are currently “stuck” in the on-chain process.

If you previously participated in a similar vault and run into a sunsetting notice like this, don’t rush to guess how the market will move. You can first sort it out for yourself: am I a borrower or a depositor? Which market is my money currently in? And which stage of the process needs to finish first for the exit?

Finally, the specific closing time, the outstanding loan volume that hasn’t been repaid, and what percentage can be withdrawn—these still need to be updated by the official sources.

Velvet @velvet_capital recently brought Robinhood Chain into VelvetX, so users can now initiate cross-chain swaps directly from networks like Solana, Base, BNB Chain, and Ethereum.

In the past, you had to pick a bridge, switch networks, and manage gas yourself. Now many of those steps are handled by the backend.

For regular users, that’s definitely progress. The biggest thing that discourages people from cross-chain transactions wasn’t that they couldn’t trade—it was that every time you switched to another chain, you had to re-evaluate the bridge, gas, and the route to arrival. It was too much hassle.

But when I looked at this update, I kept thinking: as operations get easier, can we still clearly understand what this money is going through?

Velvet uses a non-custodial model—users sign themselves, and control of the assets remains in their hands. The official also mentioned that gas fees on the Robinhood Chain side are abstracted, so users no longer need to handle them separately. These two points do lower the barrier, but they still don’t fully answer the three most practical questions in cross-chain swaps: how much you’ll be paying in total before you sign, where the funds go step by step after you sign, and where you should go if something fails.

“Gas is abstracted” may sound like there’s no cost, but it really just means the gas step is taken over by the product. What ordinary users really want to see is how much they will ultimately receive, and exactly which fees are included in the quote. The interface doesn’t have to show every underlying route, but it can’t just throw out a single number and make people guess where the difference went.

The same applies after the transaction is sent. Users don’t need to understand every routing protocol, but at the very least they should know whether they’re currently waiting for routing, waiting for confirmations on the destination chain, or whether it’s already completed. The most unsettling moment in cross-chain swaps often isn’t price fluctuation—it’s when the page spins for a long time and you don’t know whether your money is still on the original chain, in transit, or already stuck.

As for failure recovery, available public information hasn’t clarified the recovery process after a routing failure, the handling time, and who is responsible. So don’t assume that a failed transaction will automatically be refunded too early. This doesn’t mean the product will definitely have issues, but before users use it, they need to know where to check and who to contact when something goes wrong, and what state the funds will return in.

Later, I realized that evaluating a seamless cross-chain experience doesn’t require understanding too many terms. Just check whether the pre-signing fees can be calculated clearly, whether you can see the funds during execution, and whether there’s a clear exit if the transaction fails.

Good morning, sisters 🦅

Recently, the holdings chart for #USD1 on Solana has been spreading quite fast and getting a lot of discussion.

The top two addresses #Binance have 50.7% and 34.49% respectively—together 85.19%. The third place, address B (Hot Wallet), accounts for 4.84%. The fourth is still a Binance address at 3.79%.

These figures do look quite concentrated, more like exchange consolidation, custody, and operational wallets.

Most CEX trading happens within their own back-end. You store a bit, I store a bit, and in the end, the on-chain data may show that everything ended up in the same large address. One address often represents deposits, withdrawals, and trade inventory from a large number of real users—not a few independent whales operating it.

On Solana, USD1 shows about 268,573 holding addresses. That sounds like a lot, but it counts on-chain accounts, not necessarily that over 200,000 different people are holding the coin. One person can have multiple accounts, and exchange internal users wouldn’t all be fully exposed either.

What’s clearly tied to specific trading-pair funds are the Raydium USD1-USDC and WSOL-USD1 liquidity pools. Those, along with the Binance/B consolidation addresses, belong to completely different structures.

So for @worldlibertyfi’s USD1 on Solana, the on-chain storage location is indeed highly concentrated in exchange-tagged addresses—but whether real users are actually concentrated cannot be determined from this holdings leaderboard alone.

Of course, there is risk. Exchange-concentrated withdrawals, market-making rebalancing, or cross-chain operations could all affect liquidity in the short term. But that’s not the same as two whales controlling USD1.

On-chain data is transparent, but transparency doesn’t automatically mean you can derive the correct answer.

HertzFlow’s latest testnet campaign: what’s easy to misread isn’t the steps, but where the rewards come from.

Recently, Amplify S1, the recommended competitions, and the testnet feature have all been spreading. Many people end up seeing them and mistakenly understanding all of it as “airdrop preheating.”

As of July 15, @Hertzflow_xyz has confirmed that the campaign bonuses and already-open product features are what they are: testnet trading, depositing into Vaults, or Pools have not been written into any airdrop, points, or mainnet multiplier rules.

So far, the only confirmed ways to get real USDT are two independent activities.

Amplify S1 runs from July 13 to August 10. HertzFlow’s per-project bonus pool is 5,000 USDT, but it rewards eligible creators who complete the specified task content.

The other is a Referral Competition with a total pool of 100 USDT. It rewards the top 5 referrers. The exact cutoff status still needs to be checked from the latest official update or the latest Telegram announcement. These bonuses are real—but the recipients and conditions are also written very clearly, and they’re not the same thing as regular users doing a few extra testnet trades.

The testnet itself follows a different logic. Referral codes are already live, and Test USDT, tBNB, Vaults, and Pools can also be used normally. The “earn 20%” shown on the page is still part of the test environment, and the test assets have no real-world value. Referral entry exists, which suggests product features have already been opened; as for whether long-term rebates accumulate, when they’re paid out, and whether they connect to mainnet benefits—so far, the official side hasn’t provided complete rules.

This round of the campaign actually explains HertzFlow’s current stage very clearly: the project is getting users familiar with the product and having creators explain permissionless leverage, Vaults, and Pools—then expanding participation through smaller competitions. But the line about points, tokens, airdrops, and mainnet boosts hasn’t been mapped out yet. The community may have expectations, and users can experience things early, but you can’t let industry conventions force the project to make commitments.

Right now, my judgment about the testnet campaign is this: I’ll focus on who gets the rewards, what conditions are used for settlement, and whether the official has clearly linked it to future benefits. Only what’s written into the rules goes into my reward expectations; anything not confirmed gets counted as zero in my own investment ledger first. That’s how participating in HertzFlow is: you learn the product, you get clearly defined rewards, and you don’t endlessly trade or spam referrals for a multiplier that hasn’t even been created yet.

Renaiss.xyz @renaissxyz Just broke through 33,300 tickets for the World Cup event, unlocking a 1,500 USDT milestone pool. The semifinals are already underway as well—this round’s total prize value for 2 medals is $7,000.

When many people see this, their first reaction is: is the prize pool big enough?

I went through the official rules again and mapped out the core question for ordinary users—actually, it’s about how much it costs to obtain a valid ticket, and how far you can realistically go.

The first step is getting a ticket. Per the official statement, tickets are collected via renaiss.xyz’s Gacha Buyback, and Gacha itself is a paid product. Currently, the Pack prices visible on the official website are about $48 to $150 per purchase. However, the World Cup event doesn’t further specify how many tickets a single Buyback corresponds to, whether tickets are consumed after being used, or whether they can carry over to the next round. So the Pack price can’t be directly converted into a per-ticket cost.

The second step is predicting correctly. Having tickets only means you’re eligible to participate—you still need to pick the correct match outcome to enter the corresponding Lucky Draw.

The third step is the VRF draw. The four quarterfinal winners, along with prize cards totaling $3,600 USDT, are drawn on-chain at random from users with the correct predictions who meet the conditions. VRF ensures the drawing process is random and verifiable, but it won’t improve your prediction accuracy, and it won’t simply turn tickets into guaranteed wins.

The fourth step is reward distribution. The 1,500 USDT milestone pool unlocked by 33,300 tickets is shared among the relevant tickets from the 16-finals stage through to the final—tickets that support the ultimate champion. It’s a shared pool, not a fixed payout per ticket. What participants truly take on is the Gacha investment, uncertainty in the ticket rules, the possibility of incorrect predictions, and the possibility that their tickets are not drawn in the end.

From a product design perspective, Renaiss has put paid Gacha, World Cup outcome selection, VRF randomness, and community milestone mechanics into a single complete path. It doesn’t rely solely on the prize pool to drive clicks; instead, it gives Gacha users an extra layer of match interaction and an on-chain reward scenario. Accordingly, users also need to consider each condition separately, and not interpret fairness in the draw as certainty of returns.

This event is more suitable for users who are already willing to participate in Gacha, can set limits on their investment, and can accept both predictive outcomes and random results.

Good noon, sisters!

These days, Grok 4.5 is crushing it. Premium members and above get priority access—can’t wait.

I’ve also been checking out @WorldClawAI in the @worldlibertyfi ecosystem lately. What I’m interested in isn’t just how many more models they’ve connected, but how these models will be divided up going forward.

Their WorldRouter has already connected over 300 models through a compatible API, and on July 8 they even added ERNIE 5.0. DeepSeek-V4-Flash is about $0.10 per million tokens for input and $0.20 for output—cheap and fast, perfect for lots of simple requests.

Claude Fable 5 has around a million-context window and can output up to 128K. It’s especially suited for long documents, repository coding, and complex agentic tasks.

Grok 4.5 shines particularly in coding and agentic tasks—of course it’s worth handing it complicated engineering work.

But if you use it thousands of times a day for simple classification, the bill might not look as good. Conversely, if the cheaper models keep failing and retrying, the money you saved will slowly get paid back.

In the past I used to look at model leaderboards all the time. Now I think about it: leaderboards only tell you who runs fastest, but they don’t tell you who should be assigned to this specific task.

The most interesting thing about WorldClawAI next may be whether it can gradually turn users’ manual model selection into intelligent allocation based on the task.

So far it supports manually specifying models, health status monitoring, and failover guarantees in some interrupted scenarios. Whether Grok 4.5 has been integrated with WorldRouter—there’s no reliable info yet, so I can’t say in advance that it’s already a mature intelligent scheduling system.

But this direction is already very clear.

As there end up being more and more models, what developers might be missing won’t be another longer list—it’ll be a real system that truly understands how to organize work. What do you think: in the AI era, will the most valuable thing be the #1 spot on the leaderboard, or the system that’s best at scheduling and deploying them?

Good morning, sisters!

Yesterday I watched WLFI Markets, and then went back to see the Trump crypto income disclosure being stirred up. I started wondering whether political scrutiny has really hit the chain.

I’m cautious. There’s definitely pressure, but I haven’t seen signs that everyone is panicking and pulling out.

Political news usually stirs up our expectations first—online arguments, exchange traffic fluctuations—then it slowly filters down to on-chain capital, borrowing limits, and liquidation data. On-chain may be a bit slow to react, but the data is fairly reliable.

As of July 8, Dolomite on WLFI Markets shows total market size of about $739 million, with total borrowing around $262 million. For the USD1 pool: supply is approximately $283.9 million, borrowing about $146.6 million. Supply APY is 7.51%, and borrowing APR is 3.37%. The pool is still operating normally, and the news doesn’t seem to have affected the funds.

However, we can’t just assume nothing happened. The USD1 borrowing limit is already 73.3% utilized, leaving roughly $53 million in remaining capacity. On July 8, there are still deposits and withdrawals in the hundreds of thousands level. Big players are moving capital—rebalancing and probing—and they’re also repricing risk.

Two signals catch my attention. One is that the platform’s one-click strategy real-time APR has turned to 0.00%. That suggests there’s no obvious upside in these complex leveraged plays right now; if users want to do deeper layered loops, they’ll need to recalculate Gas costs, volatility, and liquidation costs. The other is that we previously saw liquidation records involving WLFI being used as collateral to borrow USD1. That’s pretty realistic—if the collateral price swings, even if the stablecoin yield looks attractive, it could still get interrupted.

So I don’t think this round of scrutiny has fully played out as a negative. And I also don’t think the chain is fully immune.

It’s more like a stress test: the external narrative burns on top, while on-chain capital underneath slowly lines up again. The pools aren’t out of control for now, but later we’ll have to watch whether borrowing limits, turnover, liquidations, and genuine borrowing demand all change their tune together.

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%—a difference of 28 percentage points. This suggests people prefer borrowing USDC more, the issue isn’t 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 “vote” at the lending/borrowing end: money sitting in a pool versus money that gets borrowed out and reused—completely different things.

@worldlibertyfi’s USD1 supply and entry ramp is moving pretty fast, but the borrowing demand in Dolomite hasn’t caught up fully yet. That’s not necessarily a bad thing—there’s still buffer in the pool, withdrawal pressure is lower, and the supplier-side APR won’t be too sensitive.

Back in April, the WLFI treasury put about 3.0 billion $WLFI as collateral and borrowed 50.44 million $USD1 —utilization 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 aren’t really judged by who issues more or whose story sounds better. It’s whether, in DeFi, they can be actively borrowed by more people—used 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 it’s a bit lower, that’s fine—it leaves some breathing room for the system.

There’s quite a lot of discussion about stablecoin yield—everyone is looking for pools that are both relatively safe and can help you make some money.

I checked @protocol_fx’s Stability Pool, and it feels quite different from a typical APY pool.

It’s more like a built-in buffer mechanism within the protocol: users deposit fxUSD or USDC, and the “yield” they receive is essentially compensation for the system’s work in maintaining the fxUSD peg, providing internal liquidity, and absorbing shocks during extreme market conditions. This money isn’t just free.

The yield sources mainly come from several parts: trading fees generated when xPOSITION and sPOSITION are opened/closed, staking rewards from stETH and wstETH, lending-market rewards earned by USDC in places like Aave, plus some FXN incentives. The sustainability of each component varies a lot—just looking at the APY number can be misleading.

More importantly, this pool doesn’t just distribute rewards—it also directly participates in running the system. When fxUSD deviates from its peg, the system uses a Chainlink oracle to automatically adjust between fxUSD and USDC to help bring the peg back. And when xPOSITION needs ebalance or liquidation, the pool can provide internal liquidity, reducing reliance on external markets.

What’s interesting about the f(x) Protocol is that it lays things out relatively clearly—how the returns come in, who bears the risk, and how the system self-buffers.

Of course, you also need to understand what happens in extreme cases. The protocol first triggers a Liquidation Brake, then moves to hard liquidation, and finally uses the Reserve Fund to handle bad debt. Based on the available information so far, the bad debt usually isn’t directly borne by Stability Pool depositors; instead, it’s more likely to be socialized across leveraged positions. Still, the protocol’s overall health, reserve coverage, the FXN price, and market liquidity will indirectly affect both the yield and people’s confidence.

When choosing a DeFi yield pool in the future, I usually first ask myself: who is actually paying out the money? Where does most of the risk land? And after subsidies stop, can this whole mechanism still keep running on its own?

If a pool’s APY is fundamentally compensation for taking on system responsibility, do you look at the numbers first—or do you clarify who will bear the risk first?

Good afternoon, sisters!

The recent changes in USD1 are interesting not only in terms of market cap rankings, but also in the order-book dynamics.

In the past, everyone compared stablecoins by size—who was bigger, who had more users. But when traders look at the derivatives desk, it’s actually simpler things they care about: how tight the spread is, how deep the limit orders are, how painful the slippage is, and whether settlement is smooth.

#USD1 has a scale of about $4.6 billion, ranking in the top five among stablecoins. This size is enough to draw attention, but it doesn’t automatically mean trading “stickiness.”

#Binance After launching the BTCUSD1 perpetual contract on May 18, recently, during some time periods, key price levels have seen order placement become noticeably more concentrated. I also looked at the order-book differences between BTCUSD1 and BTCUSDC—during certain periods, USD1 has more coherent liquidity, a lower spread, and with Maker fee 0, it’s friendlier for professional operations like placing limit orders, arbitrage, and hedging. Ordinary people holding coins might not feel much, but for capital running strategies long-term, they are especially sensitive to costs and depth. Money always flows to where it’s easier.

Binance 7-3 updated the USD1 activity rules. If a contract or leverage account maintains a certain minimum open position every day, it can receive a 1.2x reward multiplier. The system uses an hourly snapshot to take the day’s lowest value. This has shifted from encouraging holding to encouraging actual trading.

USDT captures the biggest consensus, USDC captures the compliance route, and USD1 right now looks more like it’s trying to win the battle for professional trading depth. What it needs to prove isn’t that everyone has to use it—but that in certain trading scenarios, using it is indeed smoother.

Also look at @worldlibertyfi and the whole system. According to Grayscale data, WLFI protocol revenue was about $105 million over the past 12 months, and it has entered the top ten for on-chain protocol revenue. This shows it’s not just a concept—there’s real usage and cash flow.

At present, the order-book advantage for BTCUSD1 is still only observed in certain time periods, not a full-time moat. The activity is still ongoing. After incentives step back, whether trading volume, market-making depth, and user habits can stick around—that’s the real test.

In the future, stablecoins most likely won’t be dominated by just one. Different coins will fit different scenarios. Some will capture the biggest consensus, some will capture compliant entry points, some will capture on-chain yield, and others will come to this table for the “professional trading depth” play. What USD1 is fighting for right now may very well be this seat at the table.

Girls, good evening!

Today is July 4th, the U.S. Independence Day—so I got bored and took a look at the USD1 ledger.

Stablecoins may look tempting in terms of yield, but the most important thing is to know whether there’s real money backing it. The official site clearly states that it’s supported by assets such as U.S. cash, U.S. government money market funds, and cash equivalents. BitGo has also released a Proof of Reserves report covering January to May 2026—you can directly see the specifics.

It also provides Proof of Reserves. Using the Chainlink oracle, key data like reserves, supply, and collateralization ratio are all displayed on a public dashboard, and the multi-chain supply situation is crystal clear.

Of course, PoR isn’t perfect—it mainly relies on on-chain data. For ordinary users who want to redeem 1:1 directly, it’s mainly intended for BitGo’s qualified customers. In day-to-day terms, you still need to check exchange liquidity and secondary-market conditions.

On the Dolomite platform, currently the supply liquidity is about $258 million, with borrowing of about $149 million, and utilization around 57.42%. These numbers show that it’s not just sitting on the website—real people are actually borrowing and using it, and there’s genuine market demand.

As for stablecoins, I’d follow this order: first check the reserves, then review the report and PoR dashboard, and finally see whether there’s real usage in the market. Go through all of that before deciding whether to participate in an event—don’t just chase yield and rush in.

@worldlibertyfi The comfortable part is that it breaks “trust” into things you can verify yourself. Web3 is already chaotic enough. What ordinary people need most is to be able to tell whether their money is safe, not to listen to a bunch of pretty words.

#USD1 #WLFI #WorldLibertyFinancial #Stablecoin #DeFi

Ladies, $BTC has rebounded to above 61k. The encrypted market has a bit of a recovery.

I really like watching the thick order book—when someone is there to pick up, it feels very safe. But now I’ve developed a new habit: first see how long this wall can hold, then see how tall it can get.

The signals released by #worldlibertyfi recently are pretty interesting. During certain time windows, at key price levels on BTCUSD1, there have been quite a lot of large orders resting. On the BTCUSDC side, it’s more smaller orders being laid out.

Let’s verify whether these resting orders can actually withstand real trades.

At the same time, I captured two order books using the same mid-price as the benchmark. I summarized the cumulative amount on both the buy and sell sides within ±5, ±10, and ±50 basis points, while also recording how long large orders remain and the cancellation ratio. The analysis is further split by Asia, Europe, and America sessions—we can’t use one lively hour as proof for the entire trading day.

Next, I simulated two-sided consuming trades of $100k, $500k, and $1M in size. I calculated how far the execution average price deviates from the mid price, and compared spread, slippage, and Taker fees together. BTCUSD1’s limited-time 0 maker fee can attract market-making funds, but what ultimately matters is the result end users get when they consume liquidity.

Finally, I tested the resilience of this wall. After active trades consume 30% of the depth within ±10 basis points, I recorded how long it takes for the order book to recover to 80% of its pre-shock level. How continuous are the replenishment orders? Is there symmetry between the buy and sell sides? After large orders return, how long can they stay?

Based on the final assessment: on BTCUSD1, there’s an edge in first-buy/first-sell (best bid/ask) and concentration of large orders at key price levels. BTCUSDC, on the other hand, is less mature in terms of full-depth continuity and overall day-long stability.

This test is actually quite meaningful for #USD1 .

For stablecoins to truly enter the trading system, it’s not enough for someone to just hold them. You also need someone to continuously quote around them, pick up liquidity, and replenish inventory. The speed at which the order book recovers is closer to the real threshold a trading currency faces than how many large orders appear at some moment.

#WLFI Markets' 90% is the Stablecoin E-Mode liquidation threshold.

The system automatically enables it when the position only uses USD1, USDC, and USDT, with a default of 85%. The protocol considers their price correlation to be high, so it relaxes the collateral requirements—meaning stablecoin collateral can also borrow more funds.

Currently, the total size is about $687.68 million, total borrowings are $263.61 million, USD1 supply is $238.95 million, borrowings are $149.58 million, utilization is 62.6%, and they account for 56.7% of total borrowings.

The premise is that the three stablecoins continue to track their prices in sync.

Once they de-peg, the collateral value drops while the debt remains unchanged, so the health of the position deteriorates faster. In similar positions with larger size, the risk can easily trigger cascading liquidations.

Slow oracle updates or large deviations can also cause problems. The rules don’t clearly state whether, if a particular stablecoin clearly deviates, it will automatically exit E-Mode or if the threshold will be lowered.

This 90% is the protocol’s public stance on stablecoin correlation: if they stay together and stay stable, capital moves quickly; if they go their separate ways, the risk distance is also short.

Do you treat USD1, USDC, and USDT as the same kind of dollar, or three separate sets of credit that are temporarily priced the same but carry different risks?

Good noon, sisters!

When a product is loaded into someone else’s app, traffic comes—but the name may not necessarily be remembered.

This is probably the part worth continuing to watch after WLFI Markets entered the Zebec SuperApp.

On June 23, WLFI Markets officially integrated with Zebec SuperApp. Users can access the lending pools and the liquidity treasury within the app, and the publicly stated promotional figure for USD1-related products is up to approximately 5.2% APY.

In this collaboration, the roles each of the three parties plays are not the same.

Zebec handles high-frequency use cases such as payroll and cards, and also owns the product interface that users see first. @worldlibertyfi provides brand recognition for USD1 and WLFI Markets, while Dolomite is responsible for the actual operation of the lending pools, liquidity, and settlement mechanisms.

The functionality is delivered together by the three parties, but users’ minds often end up forming only the most direct impression. Next time there’s a lending need, will they think of opening Zebec, or using WLFI Markets?

These two thoughts may differ by just a few words, but the value behind them is completely different. The former means user relationships are being cultivated at the app layer; the latter means WLFI has already written the product name into users’ cognition.

Dolomite, meanwhile, is facing a different situation.

It handles the actual operations, yet it may not become the name that ordinary users bring up first. Many mature protocols eventually end up in this position—called more and more frequently, but seen fewer and fewer times.

Based on the public page, WLFI still keeps an independent Markets display and clearly indicates that it is supported by Dolomite. This suggests it hasn’t been satisfied with providing just an embedded capability; its brand positioning is still being seriously preserved.

What truly can explain the outcome next may not be a single measure of the funding size. When users view a product, who they see first, who they go to when questions arise, who they trust when understanding risk, and who they think of first when choosing similar services next time.

These details, accumulated over time, are what form a stable customer relationship. At present, some information still hasn’t been disclosed—this includes how user behavior data is attributed, whether there is any referral or revenue-sharing arrangement among the three parties, and who leads customer service, risk explanations, and the exit process respectively.

The “up to approximately 5.2% APY” is only the highest promotional wording, and it shouldn’t be understood as a fixed return. Lending itself still involves contract risk, liquidity risk, and settlement risk.

Ladies, today the market is once again in chaos—within 24 hours, liquidations have broken 100 million USD. $BTC $ETH The volatility is huge, and stablecoin exchange demand is picking up.

I saw the Curve pool for fxUSD @protocol_fx doing $12.97 million in trading volume over the past 24 hours. At first glance, it looks like it’s starting to gain momentum. Although it’s only 183 trades, the potential is significant.

For those $12.97 million against $7.58 million in TVL, it basically turned over almost twice in a day. That suggests that when volatility spikes, capital really is using it for swaps and arbitrage.

However, the average per trade is close to $70,000. That definitely doesn’t look like small retail transactions—it looks more like aggregators, market makers, and arbitrage bots running.

Arbitrage isn’t fake. The spreads show up, and they help correct the price. And the fact that aggregators can route through it also indicates the pool has real competitiveness.

But arbitrage volume doesn’t necessarily mean users truly stick around.

Whether stablecoins can be genuinely adopted depends mainly on whether, during volatile periods, capital is willing to go through them—whether the price can hold—and how much trading volume and liquidity are left once things calm down.

#fxUSD This round of volatility has already passed the first two stages of testing; the third stage is the key. We need to see whether high trading volume can turn into sustained fees. With incentives reduced, we also have to see whether liquidity providers are still willing to stay.

Minting is just the starting point. The real “money-like” attribute depends on whether, in the messiest moments, capital is willing to go through it—and whether, after things get quiet, it’s still used. When you decide whether a stablecoin is truly being adopted, what matters most: supply and trading volume, or the usage demand that still exists even after the行情 ends?

Morning, fam!

I saw @worldlibertyfi got WLFI Markets integrated into the @Zebec_HQ SuperApp.

Now you can deposit USD1 directly in the App to lend, with a max APY of 5.2%. They've definitely streamlined the entry, no more jumping through hoops.

But even though the button's in Zebec, the actual lending happens through the Ethereum contract on @Dolomite_io, so you still gotta deal with your wallet, pay ETH gas, authorize, and wait for on-chain confirmations. Can't skip any of those steps.

I still need to confirm if the USD1 from Solana can be transferred directly for use; just because it looks usable in the App doesn’t mean it’s actually good to go on-chain.

This integration has made things easier for the average user, which is a step forward.

But while the App is simpler, you still gotta keep an eye on the on-chain details: where your assets are, who you’re authorizing, how gas fees work—know those boundaries.

Now that there’s this handy entry point, are you gonna dive in right away, or do you wanna figure out the funding path before moving your money?