# Yield Related Articles

HTX News Center provides the latest articles and in-depth analysis on "Yield", covering market trends, project updates, tech developments, and regulatory policies in the crypto industry.

Can Pendle sustain 12% gain and breakout past $1.45? If not, what’s next?

Pendle (PENDLE) gained 12% with a surge in trading volume, attempting to break key resistance near $1.475. A sustained move above this level could target $1.53, while failure may keep it range-bound. Technical indicators like the Money Flow Index and Parabolic SAR suggest bullish momentum, though overbought conditions risk profit-taking. Fundamentally, a new protocol upgrade with Curvance added utility for PT-AUSD holders, boosting community sentiment. The combination of technical strength and improved fundamentals supports demand, but a confirmed breakout depends on overcoming the immediate resistance.

ambcrypto07/03 01:02

Can Pendle sustain 12% gain and breakout past $1.45? If not, what’s next?

ambcrypto07/03 01:02

The Trillion-Dollar Credit Market Leveraged by Stablecoins, Stuck in Off-Chain Risk Control

**Stablecoins Fueling Trillion-Dollar Private Credit Market, Hampered by Off-Chain Risk Management** This article examines how interest-bearing stablecoins are replicating the business model of money market funds to democratize access to the $2 trillion private credit market, while highlighting the significant risks posed by inadequate off-chain risk controls. Historically, private credit investments had high minimums (e.g., $1 million+) due to costly due diligence and loan servicing. Stablecoins like Apollo's ACRED and Figure's YLDS are bridging this gap. They tokenize institutional credit funds, allowing small investors to gain exposure and enabling new functionalities like using these tokens as collateral in DeFi for leveraged yield. The on-chain private credit market has grown 15x in a year to $5.87 billion, yet remains a tiny fraction of the global total. However, the core challenge is not blockchain technology but managing the inherent risks of lending, which occur off-chain. The failure of Goldfinch, a pioneer in on-chain private credit, serves as a stark warning. It raised funds in crypto (USDC) to lend to small businesses in markets like Kenya and Nigeria. While smart contracts handled fund distribution, critical functions—local due diligence, monitoring loan use, and debt collection—relied on off-chain partners. A major breach, where a local partner misappropriated nearly 40% of funds, went undetected for months. When borrowers defaulted, crypto depositors had no effective legal recourse or means to seize assets, leaving $56 million trapped in non-performing loans with a projected 8-15 year recovery timeline. The article concludes that tokenization addresses only 10% of the credit business—the distribution. The remaining 90%—rigorous risk assessment and collection infrastructure—is expensive and localization-dependent. Without solving these fundamental off-chain challenges, the sector risks repeating Goldfinch's collapse.

Foresight News07/02 08:05

The Trillion-Dollar Credit Market Leveraged by Stablecoins, Stuck in Off-Chain Risk Control

Foresight News07/02 08:05

Robinhood Chain Mainnet Goes Live: Can Stocks Finally Be Moved Into Wallets?

Robinhood has officially launched its public mainnet, Robinhood Chain, along with stock-like tokens, the USDG yield product, and a DeFi lending portal. This marks a significant shift where a major online broker is integrating its user interface, regulatory compliance, self-custody wallet, and on-chain protocols into a single, streamlined experience. The goal is to simplify access to stock exposure, stablecoin yields, collateralized lending, and AMM trading for mainstream users. Eligible non-U.S. users can hold these "Stock Tokens"—structured as tokenized debt securities—in the Robinhood Wallet for 24/7 exposure to assets like U.S. stocks or ETFs. U.S. users can access an estimated ~7% APY on dollar-backed USDG through the Robinhood Earn program via self-custody wallets, with lending infrastructure powered by Morpho protocol. Built as a Layer 2 on Arbitrum, Robinhood Chain leverages existing DeFi protocols like Uniswap. The core strategy is not to reinvent DeFi but to channel Robinhood's large traditional finance user base (27.4 million funded customers as of Q1 2026) into on-chain finance, lowering the technical barriers. However, key limitations exist. The stock tokens are not direct equity ownership and are unavailable in the U.S. and some jurisdictions due to regulatory constraints. The ~7% yield is variable and carries inherent DeFi risks, not guaranteed principal protection. Furthermore, while AMMs enable trading, price discovery for major stocks will likely remain anchored in traditional markets like NASDAQ for the foreseeable future. Ultimately, Robinhood Chain is an early experiment in "on-chain brokerage." Its success will depend on real-world metrics like trading volume, sustained user migration to self-custody, stable yield performance, and regulatory feedback, rather than its launch narrative.

marsbit07/02 04:06

Robinhood Chain Mainnet Goes Live: Can Stocks Finally Be Moved Into Wallets?

marsbit07/02 04:06

DeFi Enters a Moment of Value Reassessment: Risks and Opportunities Behind the $70 Billion TVL

DeFi Enters a Moment of Value Reassessment: Peril and Opportunity Behind $70 Billion TVL On July 1st, the total value locked (TVL) across all DeFi protocols fell below $70 billion to approximately $69.358 billion, hitting its lowest point since February 2024. This decline signals a significant contraction in DeFi liquidity and marks a new adjustment phase for the industry, far from its 2021 peak of over $180 billion. The primary drivers of this TVL drop are a general decrease in crypto market risk appetite, which leads capital to exit volatile sectors like DeFi first, and the fading effectiveness of the high-yield liquidity incentive models that fueled the initial DeFi boom. Many protocols' high TVL figures were built on temporary subsidy-driven capital rather than genuine demand. Furthermore, capital is migrating to newer narratives like AI, RWA, and modular infrastructure. This cooldown exposes DeFi's growth bottlenecks: innovation has slowed with rampant protocol copycats, real yields have normalized to single digits, and poor user experience continues to hinder mass adoption beyond crypto-natives. However, the TVL decline does not spell the end for DeFi. The metric itself is limited, as it fluctuates with underlying asset prices. The industry is shifting from capital accumulation to efficiency competition, leveraging Layer 2 solutions and modular architecture to do more with less locked value. Crucially, DeFi is expanding into real-world financial use cases like the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA) and the growth of the stablecoin ecosystem, moving its value proposition from speculative token subsidies to real cash flows. In conclusion, while short-term pressures from liquidity contraction and user growth stagnation persist, the sector is undergoing a necessary value reassessment. DeFi is transitioning from a subsidy-driven, hype-based era toward a more mature, rational, and efficiency-focused phase, with long-term growth hinging on meeting real-world financial needs through RWA, stablecoins, and robust infrastructure.

marsbit07/02 00:07

DeFi Enters a Moment of Value Reassessment: Risks and Opportunities Behind the $70 Billion TVL

marsbit07/02 00:07

$7.8 Billion in Theft and Losses Reveals the Truth: Security Costs Have Become an Unavoidable Liquidity Tax for DeFi

"7.8 Billion in Thefts Reveals the Truth: Security Costs Have Become DeFi's Unavoidable 'Liquidity Tax'" A summary of Q2 2026 data reveals that security risks are now a fundamental capital cost in DeFi, directly impacting user returns and liquidity decisions. DeFiLlama recorded 88 hacking incidents with quantified losses totaling $780.3 million in Q2. April was the worst month with $644.8 million lost. DeFi protocol attacks accounted for $735.8 million, while cross-chain bridge exploits resulted in $354.4 million in losses (note: some event categorizations overlap). Cumulatively, DeFi hacks have reached $7.85 billion, with bridge losses at $3.26 billion. The quarter highlighted two primary risk categories: high-value infrastructure vulnerabilities (e.g., bridges, oracles, admin keys) causing massive single losses, and more frequent contract logic bugs. This signals a critical market shift: from post-incident analysis to preemptive pricing of risk. Users and liquidity providers now implicitly factor in the security of the entire asset pathway—not just pool APY—into their decisions. This hidden "risk premium" manifests through wider spreads, higher liquidity incentives, and capital migration towards perceived safer routes. Cross-chain bridge risks, responsible for over $353 million in Q2 losses, exemplify this change. Asset routing credibility is now part of the transaction. Following incidents like KelpDAO and THORChain, markets are demanding safer bridges, asset insurance, and clearer risk disclosure, increasing the cost of capital for riskier pathways. Consequently, security spending is transforming from a defensive cost into a core distribution cost for attracting liquidity. Protocols must invest more in audits, bug bounties, real-time monitoring, and insurance to remain competitive. Users are increasingly demanding transparency about fund flow paths, associated risks, and contingency plans. The key indicators for the industry's direction will be whether capital continues consolidating in trusted channels, if projects delay launches for enhanced audits, if insurance premiums rise, and if aggregators start displaying security risk metrics. Q2 2026 may be remembered not just as a bad period, but as the point when DeFi underwent a fundamental asset risk repricing, where security became a persistent,隐性 tax on all on-chain activity.

Foresight News07/01 08:03

$7.8 Billion in Theft and Losses Reveals the Truth: Security Costs Have Become an Unavoidable Liquidity Tax for DeFi

Foresight News07/01 08:03

Can crypto recover from its $2.6T market cap wipeout? If not, what’s next?

Cryptocurrency markets are entering Q3 under significant pressure, with the total market cap falling from a record $4.7 trillion to around $2.05 trillion. Macroeconomic uncertainty, a strengthening U.S. dollar, and rising Treasury yields are driving a flight to safety, dampening investor appetite for risk assets like crypto. This negative backdrop is compounded by weak crypto-specific fundamentals, including a sharp decline in DeFi Total Value Locked (TVL) from $115 billion to $70 billion and a record number of hacks resulting in major losses. With technical indicators and market performance lagging behind other asset classes like the NASDAQ, the outlook for a recovery in Q3 appears increasingly bearish.

ambcrypto06/29 19:02

Can crypto recover from its $2.6T market cap wipeout? If not, what’s next?

ambcrypto06/29 19:02

Why is the STRC Preferred Stock Unlikely to Return to $100?

## Summary **Title: Why is STRC Preferred Stock Struggling to Return to $100?** The article analyzes the challenges facing STRC preferred stock in returning to its designed $100 price level. The original mechanisms to support the $100 price included an adjustable dividend yield, Strategy's right to buy back shares at $101, and a $100 per share liquidation claim in case of bankruptcy. However, these mechanisms are currently failing to function effectively. **Key Points:** * **Dividend Adjustments are Ineffective:** Increasing the dividend rate to attract investors is unlikely to work. It would place a greater financial burden on the issuer, Strategy, and high dividends in a difficult environment can be perceived negatively. Dividend payments are not guaranteed and depend on board discretion, creating significant uncertainty for investors. * **The $100 Claim is Largely Theoretical:** The $100 per share claim in bankruptcy is a key theoretical support, but its practical value is questionable. STRC, as preferred stock, has no maturity date, so investors can only recover principal if Strategy initiates a buyback or goes bankrupt. Strategy's current low leverage (11%) makes bankruptcy highly unlikely unless Bitcoin's price collapses to extreme lows (~$6,600). Even in a bankruptcy scenario, preferred stockholders' claims are subordinate to bondholders, making full recovery of the $100 unlikely. * **No Fundamental Reason for a $100 Price:** Given the weak dividend guarantee and the limited practical value of the bankruptcy claim, there is no fundamental reason for STRC to trade near $100. Its market price is instead determined by investor assessment of its risks. * **Current Market Pricing Reflects Risk:** Trading around $75, STRC offers an effective dividend yield of 15.3%, implying the market is demanding a risk premium of roughly 3.8% over the stated 11.5% rate due to the perceived uncertainties. The article suggests the price could fall further if investors demand an even higher yield (e.g., to $57.5 for a 20% yield). **Conclusion:** The core mechanisms designed to support STRC's $100 price are not functioning. The dividend is uncertain, and the bankruptcy claim offers little real protection. Therefore, STRC's price is converging to a market-determined level that reflects these significant risks, with no inherent driver to push it back to $100.

Foresight News06/29 10:02

Why is the STRC Preferred Stock Unlikely to Return to $100?

Foresight News06/29 10:02

Hyperliquid demand deepens as institutions chase staking yields – Just a fad?

Hyperliquid's HYPE token is seeing structural demand growth driven by its priority fee mechanism and institutional staking. Since the mainnet launch, traders have burned over 21,000 HYPE in priority fees, with weekly burns increasing 45-fold. Adoption is broadening, with distinct fee payers growing from 14 to 130. Institutionally, Bitwise staked 1.775 million HYPE ($114M), signaling long-term conviction and reducing liquid supply. While 21Shares sold a small portion of its HYPE holdings, this appears to be isolated profit-taking rather than a broad trend. The combination of fee burns and staking is creating multiple, reinforcing demand sinks for HYPE, tightening its supply and supporting its long-term utility beyond speculation.

ambcrypto06/27 22:02

Hyperliquid demand deepens as institutions chase staking yields – Just a fad?

ambcrypto06/27 22:02

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

"Why DeFi Insurance Remains Unpurchased" explores the paradox of decentralized finance insurance. While DeFi insurance promises automatic, unbiased payouts via smart contracts—eliminating traditional insurers' denial practices—it struggles to attract users. The core issue is economic viability. Premiums are prohibitively high relative to the yields from DeFi protocols. For example, insuring a deposit on Aave or Maple Finance can consume most or even all of the annual yield, leaving returns comparable to or worse than traditional savings. Only the safest protocols, like MakerDAO, offer affordable premiums. Furthermore, the DeFi insurance model is structurally fragile. Unlike traditional insurance where risks are uncorrelated, DeFi risks are highly interconnected (e.g., oracle failures, bridge hacks). A single major exploit can simultaneously threaten multiple protocols, potentially bankrupting the entire insurance pool, which holds only millions against billions in total value locked. The governance model also creates a conflict of interest. In platforms like Nexus Mutual, token holders who vote on claims risk their own capital if payouts are approved, incentivizing denials. Consequently, the market is tiny and shrinking. Nexus Mutual dominates with $81.56 million in assets, but the industry lacks the capacity to cover a catastrophic event like the $292M Kelp DAO hack. Other providers have dwindled or shut down. The article concludes that DeFi insurance faces a "tragedy of the commons": its stability requires widespread adoption, but individual users have no incentive to pay for it, as premiums destroy their yields. Current solutions involve preventative measures like bug bounties and seeking external capital from traditional reinsurance, acknowledging that on-chain capital alone is insufficient to cover on-chain risks.

marsbit06/27 03:03

Why Is No One Buying DeFi Insurance?

marsbit06/27 03:03

Strategy Watch #5

Strategy Watch #5 analyzes institutional digital asset trends in May, highlighting diverging flows. While corporate treasuries continued accumulating Bitcoin (BTC) and Ethereum (ETH), spot ETF investors reduced exposure. Market-neutral strategies benefited as CME basis yields turned positive, reviving cash-and-carry trades. A deep dive into DeFi notes that while outflows slowed, total value locked (TVL) continued declining. The report also covers fund performance, on-chain vault yields, manager positioning as cash balances rise, and new institutional expansion initiatives.

insights.glassnode06/26 13:40

Strategy Watch #5

insights.glassnode06/26 13:40

活动图片

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow

Othersright-arrow