# Сопутствующие статьи по теме DeFi

Новостной центр HTX предлагает последние статьи и углубленный анализ по "DeFi", охватывающие рыночные тренды, новости проектов, развитие технологий и политику регулирования в криптоиндустрии.

Why Do DeFi Users Reject Fixed Rates?

Despite the intuitive appeal of fixed-rate loans for providing payment certainty, they have consistently failed to gain mainstream adoption in DeFi. This is not due to user rejection alone but stems from a fundamental mismatch between product design and actual user behavior. DeFi protocols are built as on-demand money markets, where lenders prioritize liquidity, composability, and the ability to exit or rotate capital instantly—features inherent to floating-rate pools like Aave. They accept slightly lower yields for this flexibility. In contrast, fixed-rate products require capital lock-up, sacrificing this optionality. The modest premium offered is often insufficient compensation for this loss. Furthermore, most crypto borrowing is not long-term credit but short-term leverage, basis trading, and collateral management. These borrowers are unwilling to pay a high premium for fixed rates as they don’t plan to hold debt long-term. This creates a one-sided market where lenders demand a lock-up premium, but borrowers refuse to pay it. Fixed-rate mechanisms also suffer from fragmented liquidity across different maturities, leading to poor secondary markets and significant price impacts for early exits. This forces lenders to become bond managers rather than passive liquidity providers. Ultimately, fixed-rate lending can exist as a niche product but is structurally disadvantaged to become the default in DeFi. The ecosystem is dominated by mercenary capital that values liquidity over yield certainty. For fixed rates to succeed, they must be treated as true credit instruments with priced-in exit options, rather than attempting to mimic liquid money markets.

marsbit12/21 06:44

Why Do DeFi Users Reject Fixed Rates?

marsbit12/21 06:44

Why Do DeFi Users Reject Fixed Rates?

Fixed-rate lending has consistently struggled to gain traction in DeFi, not because users inherently reject it, but due to a fundamental mismatch between product design and the actual behavior of capital in the ecosystem. DeFi protocols are built as on-demand money markets, where lenders—acting like cash managers—prioritize liquidity, composability, and the ability to exit or reallocate funds instantly. They accept lower yields in exchange for these features. In contrast, fixed-rate products require locking funds for a duration, sacrificing this flexibility for a modest premium that often fails to adequately compensate for the loss of optionality. Most crypto borrowing is not long-term credit but leveraged, tactical activity like basis trading and collateral recycling, where borrowers also prefer floating rates for their flexibility. This creates a one-sided market: lenders demand a premium to lock funds, but borrowers are unwilling to pay it. Fixed-rate markets fragment liquidity across maturities, leading to poor secondary markets and significant price impacts for early exits. While fixed-rate products can exist in niche, hold-to-maturity forms, they are structurally disadvantaged. The lender base, composed of mercenary capital seeking liquidity, will likely keep floating-rate money markets like Aave as the default, with fixed-rate serving only as an optional overlay for those explicitly seeking duration exposure.

Odaily星球日报12/21 06:41

Why Do DeFi Users Reject Fixed Rates?

Odaily星球日报12/21 06:41

Abandon Illusions, Prepare for the Most Grueling Time in the Crypto Market

The article argues that while cryptocurrency adoption will continue to accelerate, market valuations may remain depressed or decline further for a prolonged period. This decoupling between real-world usage and price action is presented not as a flaw, but as a necessary and healthy feature of the market's maturation. The author draws a parallel to the dot-com bubble, where internet user growth exploded even as the Nasdaq crashed. The core thesis is that the market is undergoing a painful but essential recalibration. Many assets were fundamentally overvalued, and the current phase will pressure-test business models, eliminating flawed projects and forcing rational valuations. Cryptocurrency is transitioning from a speculative asset to a core, "boring" infrastructure technology, much like the internet did. This shift creates discomfort. Builders, early investors, and retail token holders may see value captured by traditional companies and VCs that leverage the open infrastructure. The article posits that the biggest beneficiaries might be traditional and hybrid businesses that use crypto to improve efficiency, rather than the underlying protocols themselves. The author's outlook for near-term prices is not optimistic, warning that the process could be a prolonged test of patience. They advocate for a long-term perspective, capital preservation, and a focus on businesses with sound unit economics, while cautioning against over-financialized models and excessive infrastructure building. The conclusion is that a major market bottom, characterized by capitulation, has not yet been reached.

marsbit12/20 06:39

Abandon Illusions, Prepare for the Most Grueling Time in the Crypto Market

marsbit12/20 06:39

Columbia Professor Exposes the 'Conspiracy of Giants Going On-Chain': Beware the 'Suit Simps' Selling Out Crypto's Future

In his article, Columbia Business School professor Omid Malekan expresses skepticism toward the recent embrace of tokenization by major traditional finance (TradFi) firms—including DTCC, SWIFT, Visa, Stripe, and PayPal. While these companies publicly promote blockchain's benefits—such as real-time payments, 24/7 settlement, and programmability—they largely ignore the existential threat that permissionless, decentralized networks pose to their core business models. Malekan argues that truly decentralized systems like Ethereum fundamentally challenge the centralized control these institutions rely on. For example, DTCC’s tokenization efforts avoid addressing how direct on-chain issuance could eliminate the need for centralized clearinghouses. Similarly, stablecoins threaten SWIFT’s cross-border messaging monopoly and Visa’s card-based payment model. Although these firms see growth opportunities in blockchain—such as new fee structures or expanded services—they face an innovator’s dilemma: their legacy businesses must be disrupted for crypto’s full potential to materialize. Malekan warns that these companies, driven by risk aversion and entrenched interests, may push for regulatory capture and compromise core crypto values like permissionless access and censorship resistance. He highlights concerning trends: JPMorgan limiting tokenized assets to accredited investors, DTCC favoring permissioned “enterprise chains,” and Stripe supporting a initially permissioned blockchain. Malekan cautions against “suit simps” in crypto—those who compromise decentralization to appease traditional finance—and urges the industry to avoid diluting its foundational innovations as TradFi adopts blockchain technology.

比推12/19 21:39

Columbia Professor Exposes the 'Conspiracy of Giants Going On-Chain': Beware the 'Suit Simps' Selling Out Crypto's Future

比推12/19 21:39

活动图片