Инсайты сообщества #ton и анализ настроений на рынке

A cross-chain swap normally sounds like a technical operation.
Choose a network, connect a wallet, move assets, wait for settlement, and hope you picked the right route.
STON.fi is approaching the experience differently.
Its new “One Swap. Across Chains” campaign turns cross-chain activity into a journey built around Miles, Missions, Flight Classes, Priority Passengers and limited Flight Deals. But underneath the airline-style interface is something more significant: an attempt to make cross-chain execution feel like a single product rather than a collection of separate blockchain operations.
The campaign is therefore worth looking at as more than a points programme. It sits on top of months of work by STON.fi to expand Omniston from TON liquidity aggregation toward cross-chain execution.
❑ The Campaign Starts Before the First Swap
The first stage is the waitlist.
Users connect a TON wallet and pair the campaign's Telegram bot to reserve a seat. The campaign initially offered 1,000 Priority Passenger seats, with the first eligible participants receiving a personalized Priority Passenger Ticket and a 1,000-mile bonus.
The campaign then treats ordinary onboarding actions as progression. Connecting a TON wallet earns Miles, while connecting EVM and TRON wallets adds additional Miles. Email verification, following STON.fi on X, subscribing to Telegram and joining the Luma calendar also contribute to the campaign balance.
That structure is deliberate. The user isn't simply being asked to “use cross-chain.”
They are gradually building a profile around the activity they will eventually need for cross-chain routes.
The campaign calls this progression a Flight Class. As passengers complete missions, they move through the campaign while accumulating Miles.
❑ Miles Aren’t a Token
This distinction matters.
Miles are campaign points, not a cryptocurrency. Their purpose is internal to the campaign: users earn them through qualifying activities and can later spend them on Flight Deals. They should therefore not be interpreted as having a guaranteed dollar value or as an investment asset.
The campaign separates Miles into Total Earned Miles and Spendable Miles, giving the points system two different functions: tracking how much a participant has earned and determining how much is currently available to redeem.
That creates a simple economic loop:
Participate → earn Miles → progress → spend Miles.
And importantly, the campaign isn't positioning every reward as a token airdrop.
Flight Deals can include digital or on-chain rewards, access, subscriptions, gift cards, fee rebates, physical prizes and partner rewards.
The important point is that Miles have utility inside the campaign, rather than an externally defined monetary value.
❑ The Missions Turn Onboarding Into Progression
The interesting part is what happens between joining and redeeming rewards.
The campaign exposes pre-flight tasks and in-flight missions, with additional mission content being released progressively. One published mission, for example, asks users to enter an AMA secret code for additional Miles, while more mission bays are scheduled to open as the campaign progresses.
There are also wallet-based activities, social tasks and other participation requirements.
This makes the campaign different from a simple “connect wallet and claim points” programme.
The user is gradually introduced to the ecosystem around cross-chain activity.
The progression is essentially:
Board → complete missions → earn Miles → advance → redeem Flight Deals.
❑ Then There Is the Swap Itself
All of this gamification would be relatively uninteresting if the underlying product were ordinary.
But the campaign's actual proposition is simple:
One swap. Across chains.
The campaign presents routes involving TON, TRON, Ethereum, BNB Chain, Polygon, Base, Arbitrum, Avalanche, X Layer, Robinhood Chain and other supported networks as the ecosystem expands.
The difference is in what the user does not have to manage.
Instead of treating a cross-chain journey as a bridge transaction followed by another swap, STON.fi presents the operation as one route.
The campaign describes the execution as non-custodial and atomic, with the swap coordinated through Omniston.
That doesn't mean cross-chain swaps are magically free of risk or delays. It means the complexity of coordinating liquidity and settlement is moved beneath the user-facing experience.
And that is where Omniston becomes important.
❑ Omniston Is Doing the Work Behind the Boarding Pass
Omniston originally focused on liquidity aggregation inside TON.
Its architecture allows liquidity sources and resolvers to compete through a Request for Quote (RFQ) process. A user requests a quote, resolvers provide offers, and the system can select an appropriate quote for execution.
STON.fi has since pushed Omniston toward a broader role.
Its 2026 technical material describes the evolution from intrachain aggregation toward cross-chain execution. The architecture separates quote discovery, execution coordination and settlement, while resolvers provide executable quotes and destination-side liquidity.
For cross-chain routes, STON.fi has also documented resolver-based settlement using HTLCs, or Hash Time-Locked Contracts.
At a high level, the mechanism links the two sides of a cross-chain swap through cryptographic conditions and time constraints. This allows the swap to be coordinated without requiring the user to deposit funds with a traditional custodial bridge.
The campaign compresses all of that complexity into a much simpler experience:
Choose where the assets start. Choose where they should end. Omniston handles the execution path.
❑ Why STON.fi Built the Campaign Around Cross-Chain
The timing makes more sense when viewed alongside STON.fi's development history.
In June 2026, STON.fi announced that TON × EVM swaps had gone live inside its dApp. Around the same period, it published technical explanations of resolver-based HTLC settlement and how cross-chain swaps could work without relying on the conventional bridge model.
Omniston's evolution followed the same direction:
DEX aggregation → cross-DEX routing → cross-chain execution.
The campaign is therefore the user-facing layer of a broader infrastructure story.
STON.fi has spent months working on the infrastructure required to connect liquidity and execution across different networks. Now, instead of simply presenting users with a technical cross-chain feature, it is wrapping that experience in a progression system.
Miles make the journey visible.
Missions encourage exploration.
Flight Deals create a reason to continue.
Omniston handles the complexity underneath.
❑ What Happens Next?
The campaign is still unfolding, which means some of its mechanics are being revealed progressively.
The published structure already establishes the waitlist, Priority Passenger system, Miles, Flight Classes, missions, Flight Deals and cross-chain swaps. But the full catalogue of missions and future Flight Deals can evolve as new stages open.
That makes the campaign less like a single promotional event and more like a staged product experience.
And perhaps that is the real experiment.
For years, using multiple blockchains has required users to understand the boundaries between those blockchains.
STON.fi is trying to reverse that relationship: keep the chains and liquidity infrastructure underneath, while presenting the user with something much simpler.
A passenger doesn't need to understand every component of an aircraft to take a flight.
STON.fi's bet is that cross-chain DeFi can eventually work the same way.
Ready to Board?
The best way to understand the campaign is to experience it yourself.
Connect your wallet, complete the available missions, earn Miles and explore cross-chain swaps through STON.fi’s “One Swap. Across Chains” campaign.
🎟️ Join the campaign: https://cross-chain.ston.fi/
#TON $TON

In August 2025, STON.fi reported a striking milestone: its liquidity providers had generated 62% of all LP fees recorded across TON in 2025, according to Dune Analytics.

At first glance, that number sounds like a measure of liquidity dominance. But LP fees and liquidity are not the same thing.
A protocol can hold a large amount of liquidity without generating significant fees if traders rarely use it. Conversely, a smaller pool can generate substantial fees if it processes a large amount of trading activity.
So what does the 62% figure actually tell us about STON.fi and TON DeFi?
The answer starts with understanding what an LP fee represents.
❑ 62% Is Not a Liquidity Share
The first distinction is simple but important.
62% of LP fees does not mean STON.fi controlled 62% of TON’s liquidity.
LP fees are generated when traders use liquidity pools. When someone swaps one token for another through an AMM, the trade incurs a fee. A portion of that fee goes to the liquidity providers who supplied the capital used by the pool.
STON.fi’s documented default fee structure is 0.3% per trade, with 0.2% going to liquidity providers and 0.1% going to the protocol. Fee parameters can also be configured at the pool level.
That means the amount of fees generated depends heavily on how much trading actually passes through the liquidity.
A pool containing $10 million that processes very little volume can generate fewer fees than a $2 million pool that traders use constantly.
This is why the 62% statistic is more interesting as a measure of fee-generating activity than as a simple measure of deposited capital.
❑ The Number Came From Trading Activity
The underlying Dune methodology helps explain what was being measured.
The TON Foundation Dune query identified in the research combines TON DEX trade data with daily pool information containing LP fee parameters. Conceptually, the calculation is:
Trading volume × LP fee rate = LP fees generated
The result is then aggregated by DEX.
This matters because it connects the statistic directly to actual on-chain trading activity.
If a pool has a 0.2% LP fee and processes $1 million in eligible trading volume, that activity generates approximately $2,000 in LP fees before considering the precise pool configuration and accounting methodology.
The important point is that the liquidity has to be used.
Capital sitting inside a pool is the infrastructure. Trading activity is what turns that infrastructure into fee generation.
❑ What the 62% Figure Was Actually Saying
STON.fi published the 62% figure on August 7, 2025, describing it as the share of all LP fees generated on TON in 2025 according to Dune Analytics.
The TON ecosystem report for August 2025 also recorded the same 62% milestone.
There is, however, an important time distinction.
The announcement was made in August, meaning the figure was a 2025 year-to-date measurement, not a completed calendar-year result. The public Dune query associated with the analysis can produce a different percentage when later 2025 data is included.
So the most accurate way to understand the statistic is:
As of the period measured in August 2025, STON.fi accounted for 62% of the LP fees recorded across the TON DEX ecosystem.
❑ Why Fee Generation Matters More Than Idle Liquidity
Liquidity is necessary for decentralized trading, but liquidity by itself does not tell us how productive that capital is.
Imagine two DEXs.
DEX A has $50 million in liquidity but very little trading activity.
DEX B has $20 million in liquidity and significantly more trading volume.
If traders consistently use DEX B’s pools, its LPs can generate more fees even though the protocol has less total liquidity.
This creates a simple relationship:
Liquidity → trading capacity → executed volume → LP fees
The 62% figure therefore tells us that a very large share of the fee-generating activity measured across TON was occurring through STON.fi liquidity.
❑ STON.fi Had Both Liquidity and Significant Trading Activity
The broader TON ecosystem data gives the 62% milestone useful context.
In May 2025, the TON ecosystem report recorded STON.fi’s TVL at approximately $65 million, representing a 30% month-over-month increase.
Later in 2025, the ecosystem report recorded STON.fi at $38.2 million in TVL, $105 million in monthly volume, more than 5.6 million cumulative users, and more than 29.7 million cumulative swaps.
These numbers should not be treated as the explanation for the 62% figure by themselves. They are measured at different points in time and use different metrics.
But together, they show something important: STON.fi was operating with a substantial liquidity base while also processing significant trading activity.
That combination is exactly what produces LP fees.
❑ TON Was Not a One-DEX Market
Another important part of the story is competition.
STON.fi was not generating these fees in an ecosystem without alternatives. TON had multiple DEXs, including DeDust and TONCO, each with its own liquidity pools, trading activity and fee structures.
Dune’s TON DEX data shows STON.fi, DeDust, TONCO and other protocols participating in the same broader trading ecosystem.
That makes the 62% figure more meaningful.
The question is not simply whether STON.fi had liquidity.
The question is how much of the ecosystem’s fee-generating activity was actually settling through that liquidity compared with the alternatives.
And according to the reported Dune measurement, STON.fi accounted for the largest share during the measured period.
❑ But High Aggregate Fees Do Not Mean Every LP Won
There is another distinction that is easy to miss.
A protocol generating 62% of ecosystem LP fees does not mean every LP on that protocol earned a 62% return, or even that every STON.fi LP earned more than LPs elsewhere.
Individual LP earnings depend on the specific pool and the LP’s share of it.
Suppose a pool generates $100,000 in LP fees. An LP providing 1% of that pool would not receive the entire $100,000. Their share would depend on their proportional ownership and the pool’s accounting.
There is also another side to liquidity provision: price movement.
LPs can experience impermanent loss when the relative prices of deposited assets change. Therefore, gross fee generation and an individual LP’s final economic return are not the same measurement.
The 62% statistic describes aggregate fee generation at the protocol/ecosystem level, not the profitability of every individual liquidity provider.
❑ Where Omniston Fits Into the Picture
STON.fi’s broader infrastructure also includes Omniston, its liquidity aggregation and routing layer.
Omniston can source liquidity from multiple venues and routes, including STON.fi pools and other liquidity sources.
That distinction matters.
Omniston is not the same thing as STON.fi’s AMM liquidity.
A route using another DEX’s pool does not automatically become STON.fi LP volume.
The Dune methodology behind the LP-fee calculation is based on executed DEX trades and the fee parameters associated with the pools involved. Therefore, only trading activity that actually generates fees for STON.fi pools contributes to STON.fi’s LP-fee total under that methodology.
There is not enough historical evidence to claim that Omniston itself caused the 62% milestone, so the statistic should stand on its own.
❑ The Bigger Signal Is Liquidity That Gets Used
The most useful way to interpret the 62% milestone is not:
STON.fi had 62% of TON’s liquidity.
The evidence does not establish that.
A more accurate interpretation is:
During the measured 2025 period, STON.fi liquidity accounted for 62% of the LP fees recorded across the TON DEX ecosystem.
That points toward something more fundamental about decentralized exchanges.
Liquidity has value when it is useful.
For LPs, useful liquidity is liquidity that traders actually interact with. Every eligible swap creates fee-generating activity, and sustained trading activity can turn deposited capital into an ongoing source of fee revenue.
This is also why TVL alone can provide an incomplete picture of a DEX.
TVL tells us how much capital is there.
LP fees tell us how much fee-generating activity that liquidity helped facilitate.
Both metrics matter, but they answer different questions.
❑ What the 62% Milestone Actually Tells Us
The 62% figure should not be treated as proof that STON.fi is automatically the “best” DEX on TON.
It does, however, provide a measurable snapshot of where a large portion of TON’s LP fee generation was occurring.
Combined with STON.fi’s documented liquidity infrastructure, substantial trading activity and large user base, the data shows a DEX whose liquidity was being used at significant scale.
And that is the more interesting story behind the number.
Liquidity is only the starting point. The real economic activity begins when traders use it.
If you want to explore the liquidity pools behind STON.fi’s trading ecosystem, you can start directly at: https://ston.fi
#TON $TON $STON #defi

ton

💎 TON: ТОП-3 причины, почему эта монета сейчас в фаворе у трейдеров

Miles, Missions and Cross-Chain Swaps: Inside STON.fi’s New Campaign.

STON.fi Generated 62% of TON’s LP Fees in 2025. What Does That Actually Mean?

Everything is strange with Gram(Ton)

ton

💎 TON: ТОП-3 причины, почему эта монета сейчас в фаворе у трейдеров

Miles, Missions and Cross-Chain Swaps: Inside STON.fi’s New Campaign.

STON.fi Generated 62% of TON’s LP Fees in 2025. What Does That Actually Mean?

Everything is strange with Gram(Ton)

В тренде