Pharos Ecosystem Security Guide: Full-Link Risk Control for RWA Asset Integration

marsbit2026-01-20 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-01-20 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

"Pharos Ecosystem Security Guide: Comprehensive Risk Control for RWA Asset Integration" This guide provides developers in the Pharos ecosystem with a practical framework for integrating Real-World Assets (RWAs), addressing the unique challenges of combining off-chain legal claims with on-chain functionality. Pharos’s Layer 1 infrastructure, featuring Block-STM for parallel execution and dual EVM/WASM support, offers the high-speed settlement and complex computational power required for RWA operations. The analysis identifies two primary RWA models: 1) the on-chain to off-chain model (e.g., fundraising in stablecoins for off-chain investments like U.S. Treasuries) and 2) the asset tokenization model (e.g., fractionalizing real estate for on-chain ownership). The core focus is mitigating critical risks beyond smart contracts. Key strategies include: enforcing identity compliance via smart contract-level whitelisting and DID integration; implementing oracle-based circuit breakers to halt operations during stablecoin depegging events; ensuring asset authenticity with multi-source oracles for real-time NAV updates; mandating transparency for off-chain Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs); designing built-in redemption queues and liquidity buffers to prevent secondary market collapses; and rigorously defending against inherited EVM vulnerabilities using audited libraries and reentrancy guards. The conclusion emphasizes that RWA security is a full-stack challenge, requiring robust in...

This article aims to provide developers within the Pharos ecosystem with a more practical and in-depth reference for RWA integration. We attempt to restore the complex challenges and countermeasures faced when bringing Real World Assets (RWA) on-chain from the perspectives of business logic and risk control architecture.

Introduction

The Pharos ecosystem is committed to becoming the infrastructure connecting traditional financial assets with the Web3 world. Unlike native crypto assets, Real World Assets (RWA) possess both off-chain entity rights and on-chain trading attributes. This dual nature dictates that its security boundary cannot stop only at the smart contract level but must extend into every crevice of asset verification, data synchronization, and compliance regulation.

Based on an in-depth analysis of mainstream RWA projects [1], we will outline the critical path for building robust RWA applications for Pharos developers from three dimensions: architecture patterns, core risk zones, and integration strategies.

I. Why is Pharos Suitable for RWA?

Pharos is a Layer 1 blockchain designed for internet-scale. For RWA developers, there's no need to delve into the underlying consensus details; focus should be on solving the two core aspects: asset settlement and complex computation.

  1. Parallel Execution & Sub-Second Finality (Block-STM) Traditional EVM processes transactions serially, which can easily cause congestion during large RWA distributions or rebalancing. Pharos introduces the Block-STM parallel execution engine, achieving sub-second finality.

  • This means off-chain fund arrival and on-chain settlement can be almost synchronized, eliminating the exchange rate fluctuation and slippage risks associated with "T+1".

  1. Dual-VM Architecture (EVM + WASM) Pharos natively supports dual runtime environments: EVM and WASM.

  • EVM Layer: Responsible for connectivity. Existing Solidity lending protocols, DEX code can be deployed directly to handle RWA assets.

  • WASM Layer: Responsible for computation. RWA involves complex interest tax calculations, tiered risk control, and compliance whitelist logic, which is extremely gas-intensive and inefficient to run on EVM. Such computation-intensive logic can be migrated to WASM modules, enabling high-performance, low-cost on-chain risk control.

https://docs.pharosnetwork.xyz

II. Two Operational Logics of RWA

Before designing RWA protocols on Pharos, developers need to understand the two mainstream asset circulation models and their capital circuits:

  1. On-Chain to Off-Chain Model

This is currently the most common model, essentially involving on-chain fundraising and off-chain investment. Investors stake stablecoins (e.g., USDC) on-chain → the project party aggregates and converts them to fiat (USD) → invests in off-chain high-liquidity assets (e.g., US Treasury bonds) → the interest earned flows back on-chain and is distributed to token holders.

Case: Matrixdock's $STBT. Qualified investors mint $STBT (1:1 pegged to short-term Treasury bonds), the funds are used by the project party to purchase bonds, and on-chain holders enjoy an annualized yield of about 4.8%.

  1. Asset On-Chaining Model

This model focuses on the securitization and fractionalization of specific assets. The project party locks a specific off-chain asset (e.g., real estate) and values it → issues corresponding ERC-20 tokens → investors subscribe with stablecoins → the project party is responsible for off-chain asset maintenance and operation → generated cash flow (e.g., rent) is periodically distributed on-chain as dividends.

Case: RealT's real estate tokenization. For example, a property in Detroit worth $65,900 is split into 1300 tokens; investors buying tokens gain the right to rental income from that property.

III. Risk Landscape & Pharos Integration Strategies

The fatal risks of RWA often lie not in the code but in the衔接环节 (connection points) between off-chain and on-chain. Existing RWA projects have significant structural deficiencies in identity verification, asset pegging, and data transparency. When building applications on Pharos, developers should focus on defending against the following gray rhino risks.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3689931.3694913

  1. Penetrative Identity Compliance

Projects claim compliance but it's often superficial. Statistics show less than half of projects implement effective KYC; even well-known projects (like RealT) had video verification steps that could be easily fooled with a single photo. Some projects emphasize AML in whitepapers but in practice only require connecting a wallet to trade, making fund source tracing impossible.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3689931.3694913

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Don't just perform identity checks on the web frontend. A whitelist mechanism must be integrated at the smart contract layer to ensure only addresses verified through DID (Decentralized Identity) or off-chain KYC can call mint or transfer functions. Taking $STBT as an example, override the ERC-20 transfer and transferFrom functions so only certified whitelists can call them.

https://etherscan.io/address/0x530824da86689c9c17cdc2871ff29b058345b44a#code

  • For high-net-worth asset transactions, introduce a 2FA mechanism to prevent asset theft due to private key leakage; research shows only a minority of projects currently achieve this.

  1. Stablecoin Dependency & Circuit Breakers

Stablecoins are the lifeblood of RWA, with nearly 90% of projects relying on them for settlement. But developers often overlook the depegging risk of stablecoins themselves, such as the USDC depegging during the SVB incident or the depegging risk of USDe [2]. If depegging occurs, does the project have a dedicated risk reserve fund to handle the crisis?

https://x.com/ethena_labs/status/1976773136294224071

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Oracles should not only be used for price feeds but also as risk control triggers. When monitoring shows the price of the settlement stablecoin (e.g., USDC/USDT) deviates from the peg beyond a threshold (e.g., 5%), the contract should automatically pause minting and redemption to prevent arbitrage attacks on the protocol.

  • When designing capital pools, consider supporting multiple stablecoins or even a basket of currencies to mitigate the impact of single-asset systemic risk. Also, try to avoid complex algorithmic stablecoins in the choice of stablecoins, as these are most prone to depegging.

  1. Data Bridging & Authenticity Verification

The biggest black box in RWA is whether the on-chain asset truly corresponds to the off-chain physical asset. Many projects' so-called information disclosure is just posting a few PDF files on a webpage; there have even been absurd cases of using looped videos冒充 (impersonating) real-time monitoring. OpenEden's Net Asset Value (NAV) reports have also been lagging by a month.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/epdf/10.1145/3689931.3694913

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Utilize oracle networks like Chainlink to directly connect to APIs of off-chain custodian banks or auditing institutions. Pharos developers should strive to achieve minute-level on-chain updates of Net Asset Value (NAV), rather than relying on monthly or quarterly reports from the project party.

  • Project valuation deviation risks occur from time to time. During development, introduce multi-source oracle price feeds to make the on-chain price reflect the off-chain market as accurately as possible.

  1. Legal Entity Isolation & Transparency

Off-chain asset default is a non-negligible risk for RWA, for example, Goldfinch experienced a $5.9 million credit default [4]. The key to isolating risk lies in SPVs (Special Purpose Vehicles), but only a minority of projects publicly declare using an SPV structure, and most do not disclose the specific registered entity name. Taking the Goldfinch crisis as an example, it directly caused a 20% drop in the $GFI token, severely harming investors莫名其妙 (inexplicably).

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Mandate disclosure of the legal name and jurisdiction of registration for the SPV holding the assets in the project metadata or documentation.

  • Ensure each asset pool corresponds to an independent SPV. In Pharos contract design, funds from different asset pools should be logically completely isolated to prevent a single asset default from draining the protocol's overall liquidity.

  1. Liquidity Drought After False Prosperity

Liquidity is the aspect of RWA projects most easily faked but also most prone to collapse [2]. The order book depth in the early stages of many RWA projects is highly dependent on market maker subsidies. Once the market making agreement expires or subsidies stop, the secondary market depth often plummets悬崖式 (cliff-like), with buy orders disappearing instantly. Furthermore, there is a natural time mismatch between the low frequency of off-chain asset valuation (usually monthly or quarterly NAV) and the high frequency of on-chain trading (second-level block production). When large sell-offs occur on-chain, AMM pools often lack real-time fair value guidance and cannot quickly readjust, causing prices to deviate severely from NAV and forming a liquidity black hole. As shown in the example of $USDR below, due to a bank run, the token price rapidly dropped from $1 to $0.5 within hours [5].

https://www.blocktempo.com/not-so-tangible-usdr-stablecoin-collapses/

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Do not bet liquidity entirely on DEX or CEX secondary markets. Developers can build in回购/赎回队列 (buyback/redemption queue) functionality into the contract. When the secondary market price is significantly lower than NAV (e.g., a discount exceeding 3%), allow holders to bypass the secondary market and directly initiate redemption requests to the protocol against the SPV's underlying assets, managed by the smart contract for queuing and fund distribution.

  • Imitate the reserve system of traditional banks by mandating the retention of a certain percentage (e.g., 5%-10%) of stablecoins as an on-chain liquidity buffer pool during the Mint process. These funds are not used to purchase off-chain assets but are specifically used for instant buybacks executed automatically by the smart contract when secondary market liquidity dries up, defending the price floor.

  1. Inherited Risks of EVM Native Vulnerabilities

Pharos achieves full compatibility with EVM, meaning developers enjoy the convenience of the Solidity ecosystem while fully inheriting its classic attack vectors. Due to compliance needs, RWA contracts often contain numerous high-privilege functions (e.g., blacklist, forceTransfer, pause), making permission management and proxy upgrades a more sensitive critical weakness than in DeFi protocols.

https://owasp.org/www-project-smart-contract-top-10/

Pharos Development Advice:

  • Strict Adherence to Standard Libraries: Do not reinvent the wheel. For access control,务必 (must) use OpenZeppelin's AccessControl or Ownable2Step. If the admin private key of an RWA contract is stolen due to a vulnerability in custom logic, it means the ownership of the off-chain physical asset could become a legal dispute.

  • Proxy Upgrade Risk Control: RWA contracts are often upgradeable (UUPS/Transparent). When deploying updates, storage slot conflicts must be strictly checked to prevent asset mapping tables from becoming混乱 (chaotic) due to variable overwriting.

  • Reentrancy Attack Defense: When handling distribution logic (Distribute Yield) or redemption logic, even for whitelisted users, ReentrancyGuard must be added to all external calls (Call) to prevent malicious contracts from draining the fund pool using callback functions.

IV. Summary

Looking back at the development of the RWA track, we have seen too many cases of false prosperity relying on UI-packaged compliance and market making to maintain liquidity. Within the Pharos ecosystem, we advocate for a more resilient development paradigm.

As developers, it is necessary to清醒地认识到 (be清醒ly aware): RWA security risks exist not only at the smart contract code implementation level, but also in off-chain aspects like asset verification failure and liquidity mismatch. Pharos's sub-second finality gives us the confidence to handle complex financial business, but this requires developers to be more rigorous in integration strategies, embedding KYC/AML into the underlying logic, enforcing risk reserve fund systems through code, and maximizing asset data transparency.

The future competition among RWA protocols will no longer be a numbers game of TVL, but a contest of asset authenticity and system robustness. Securing this last mile of the safety loop is a required course for every builder in the Pharos ecosystem.

İlgili Sorular

QWhat are the two main operational logics for RWA (Real World Asset) integration on the Pharos network, and how do they differ?

AThe two main operational logics are the 'On-chain to Off-chain' model and the 'Asset On-chain' model. The 'On-chain to Off-chain' model involves raising funds on-chain (e.g., users staking stablecoins), converting them to fiat currency off-chain, investing in high-liquidity assets like US Treasury bonds, and then distributing the interest earnings back on-chain. The 'Asset On-chain' model focuses on the securitization and fractionalization of specific off-chain assets, where an asset like real estate is locked, valued, and represented by ERC-20 tokens, with generated cash flows (e.g., rent) distributed as on-chain dividends.

QAccording to the article, what is a critical architectural feature of Pharos that makes it suitable for handling the complex computations required by RWA protocols, and how does it work?

APharos's Dual-VM architecture, supporting both EVM and WASM, is a critical feature. The EVM layer is responsible for connectivity, allowing existing Solidity-based DeFi protocols like lending and DEXs to be deployed seamlessly to handle RWA assets. The WASM layer is responsible for computation, efficiently running complex, gas-intensive logic such as interest and tax calculations, multi-tiered risk control, and compliance whitelists off-chain, which would be prohibitively expensive and slow if run solely on the EVM.

QThe article identifies 'Stablecoin Dependency and Circuit Breakers' as a major risk. What specific developer recommendations does it provide to mitigate the risk of a stablecoin de-pegging event?

AThe recommendations are to use oracles not just for price feeds but as risk control triggers. Smart contracts should be programmed to automatically pause minting and redemption functions if the price of the designated settlement stablecoin (e.g., USDC/USDT) deviates from its peg beyond a set threshold (e.g., 5%). Additionally, developers should design liquidity pools to support a basket of stablecoins or multiple currencies to reduce systemic risk from a single asset and avoid using complex algorithmic stablecoins that are more prone to de-pegging.

QWhat solution does the article propose to address the 'liquidity black hole' problem, where a large on-chain sell-off causes an RWA token's price to crash due to a time mismatch with its off-chain Net Asset Value (NAV)?

AThe article proposes two solutions. First, developers should build a built-in redemption queue function into the smart contract. This allows holders to bypass the secondary market and directly request redemption from the protocol's underlying SPV assets when the market price falls significantly below the NAV (e.g., a discount over 3%). Second, it recommends implementing a reserve requirement system, similar to traditional banks, where a percentage (e.g., 5%-10%) of stablecoins from the minting process is held in a dedicated on-chain liquidity buffer. This fund is used for automatic, smart contract-executed buybacks to maintain a price floor during liquidity crises.

QBeyond typical smart contract vulnerabilities, what are two critical non-code-related risks highlighted for RWA projects, and what is a key mitigation strategy for each?

ATwo critical non-code risks are: 1) Failure of identity compliance, where KYC/AML checks are superficial or easily bypassed. The mitigation is to integrate whitelist mechanisms directly into the smart contract logic (e.g., overriding ERC-20 transfer functions) so only addresses verified by a robust DID or off-chain KYC system can interact with core functions. 2) Lack of legal entity transparency and isolation, where it's unclear which SPV holds the off-chain assets. The mitigation is to mandate the disclosure of the SPV's legal name and jurisdiction in the project's metadata and to ensure smart contract logic keeps funds for different asset pools completely isolated to prevent contagion from a single asset's default.

İlgili Okumalar

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

A discussion on Zhihu about "AI relay stations" shifted the niche developer topic of "cheap tokens" into broader user awareness. Users moved beyond simply questioning the legitimacy of these services to focus on practical concerns: Where do cheap tokens truly come from? Is the model being accessed the real one? Can relay stations see prompts, code, and API keys? For occasional users, are the risks worth it? The core debate centered less on price and more on trust. A primary worry is model authenticity—the risk of "model swapping," where users paying for a premium model might be routed to a cheaper one, creating an information asymmetry. Others argued that cost comparisons matter; while cheaper than official pay-as-you-go APIs, relay stations may not be the lowest-cost option versus subscriptions, domestic models, or free tiers, making user needs assessment crucial. Speculation about token sources ranged from legitimate bulk discounts to gray-area methods like account sharing or exploiting regional pricing. This opacity makes risk assessment difficult for users. Data security emerged as a critical concern, especially for enterprise use. When processing sensitive information like code, contracts, or client data, the inability to verify a relay station's data handling, retention, or access policies poses significant compliance and confidentiality risks. The evolving consensus suggests relay stations can be used cautiously for low-sensitivity, disposable tasks (e.g., summarizing public info, simple translation). However, they should not be the default for sensitive, professional, or production workflows involving proprietary data, Agents, or automated systems. Recommendations include avoiding large prepayments, not relying on a single service, using test prompts to monitor quality, anonymizing data where possible, and keeping official channels as backups. Ultimately, the discussion framed tokens not just as a billing unit but as a measure of real cost encompassing price, model integrity, data security, and service stability. The popularity of relay stations highlights user demand for affordable access, but the debate underscores a key trade-off: the savings from cheap tokens may come at the price of trust, transparency, and control over one's data and AI experience.

marsbit1 dk önce

AI Relay Stations Spark Heated Debate on Zhihu: Behind Cheap Tokens, What Are Users Really Worried About?

marsbit1 dk önce

In-Depth Research Report on TradFi: The Convergence Wave of Crypto and Traditional Finance

In 2026, the crypto industry is undergoing a profound infrastructure-level transformation—TradFi assets are migrating on-chain at an unprecedented pace. According to CoinGecko's Q1 2026 report, the total value locked (TVL) of tokenized real-world assets (RWA) has surpassed $31 billion, a nearly 4x increase from $7.8 billion at the beginning of 2025, with the sector’s aggregate market capitalization reaching $19.3 billion. Among these, the market cap of tokenized stocks surged from $2 million to $486 million, with Q1 spot trading volume reaching $15.1 billion—a single quarter already surpassing the entire second half of 2025. RWA perpetual contract Q1 trading volume reached a staggering $524.8 billion, far exceeding the $313 billion for all of 2025. Meanwhile, BlackRock's BUIDL fund has reached $2.3 billion in scale and has filed for two new tokenized funds, signaling that the world's largest asset manager's tokenization strategy is evolving from pilot to product suite expansion. HTX, as a core participant in the crypto exchange sector, officially launched TradFi perpetual futures products including NVDA, AAPL, MSFT, META, and SPY in 2026, enabling crypto users to gain 24/7 trading access to core U.S. equities. Boston Consulting Group predicts that global tokenized asset scale could reach $16 trillion by 2030, while McKinsey offers a conservative estimate of approximately $2 trillion. The on-chain migration of TradFi assets is no longer a "future narrative" but a structural transformation unfolding in real time, as crypto exchanges evolve from single crypto asset trading platforms toward "multi-asset-class trading infrastructure."

HTX Learn3 dk önce

In-Depth Research Report on TradFi: The Convergence Wave of Crypto and Traditional Finance

HTX Learn3 dk önce

Blockchain Association Urges Senate To Pass CLARITY Act With Letter Backed By 160 Ex-Officials

The Blockchain Association, along with 160 former national security and law enforcement officials, has urged Senate leaders to pass the CLARITY Act. They argue that without clear federal regulation, crypto activity will move to opaque offshore markets, hindering U.S. efforts to combat financial crime. The letter highlights that the Act would strengthen law enforcement by expanding anti-money laundering and sanctions requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act, improving information sharing between agencies like the Treasury, DOJ, and FBI, and enhancing oversight of digital asset kiosks with measures like transaction monitoring and fraud prevention. The Association emphasizes these are enforcement enhancements, not deregulation. Momentum for the bill is building, with a Senate vote expected this summer, though it would still need reconciliation with a previously passed House version.

bitcoinist10 dk önce

Blockchain Association Urges Senate To Pass CLARITY Act With Letter Backed By 160 Ex-Officials

bitcoinist10 dk önce

Blocked Its Own Treasure, WeChat AI Steps Up

Tencent's stock surged over 10% on June 2nd amid reports that WeChat, with 1.43 billion monthly users, is finalizing tests for a native AI Agent. The reported feature, accessible by swiping right from the main interface, allows users to issue commands in natural language. The AI then decomposes tasks and automatically calls upon relevant Mini Programs within WeChat to complete actions like ordering food, booking tickets, or making payments, creating a closed-loop service execution system. This strategic shift follows the internal conflict and subsequent "blocking" of Tencent's standalone AI app, Yuanbao, by WeChat for violating sharing rules during a 2026 Spring Festival promotion. The incident highlighted a lack of internal consensus and exposed the weakness of competing in the standalone AI assistant arena against rivals like ByteDance's Doubao (345M MAU) and Alibaba's Qianwen. The new WeChat AI Agent aims to leverage WeChat's unique assets—its massive user base, standardized Mini Program APIs, WeChat Pay, and identity system—to move from simple content generation to actual task execution. Analysts note this changes the competitive landscape from model benchmarks to which AI can connect to more real-world services. However, success depends on key variables: the capability of Tencent's underlying Hunyuan model, managing massive inference costs, and redesigning incentives for Mini Program developers whose traffic might be bypassed. The move is seen as an attempt to keep user service intent within WeChat's ecosystem as AI begins to redefine how users access services.

marsbit1 saat önce

Blocked Its Own Treasure, WeChat AI Steps Up

marsbit1 saat önce

ByteDance Adopts Arm CPUs, Jensen Huang: So Sad I Didn't Buy Arm

**Summary:** At Computex 2026, Arm CEO Rene Haas announced that ByteDance and Oracle have adopted Arm's self-designed Arm AGI data center CPU. The company expects significant revenue growth from this product, projecting $20 billion in demand for the 2027/2028 fiscal years. Haas noted that restricting AI-capable CPUs from the US to China is nearly impossible due to their widespread applications. Arm's stock has surged dramatically this year, notably rising 16% after NVIDIA's Arm-based Vera CPU and RTX Spark announcements. A highlight was the informal, humorous on-stage conversation between Haas and NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang. Huang joked about NVIDIA's failed attempt to acquire Arm and playfully lamented selling his Arm shares. Both executives showed a clear sense of camaraderie and shared regret over the missed merger. Key technical topics were discussed: 1. **AI PC Design:** Huang explained NVIDIA's RTX Spark superchip (with a 20-core Arm CPU) is designed for future AI agents that will autonomously run and use tools on PCs, blending local and cloud processing. 2. **Agent vs. OS:** Huang emphasized the operating system remains crucial, as AI agents rely on its APIs and tools to function. 3. **Growth Constraints:** He identified the shift to "useful AI" that generates profitable tokens as a primary driver for immense, almost limitless, computational demand. Haas outlined Arm's strategy across PC and data centers. For PCs, Arm collaborates with partners like NVIDIA and MediaTek, offering its compute subsystem (CSS) for custom SoCs. In data centers, its Arm AGI CPU (built on TSMC's 3nm process) has gained major partners including OpenAI, Meta, and now ByteDance and Oracle. Arm presented a multi-year roadmap for its in-house CPU line. The article concludes that while GPUs dominated the AI training race, the explosion of AI agents is shifting significant focus to CPUs for inference, state management, and tool orchestration. The industry is trending towards vertical integration, with companies like cloud providers designing chips and chip/IP firms offering full solutions, all competing to deliver more efficient computing per watt.

marsbit1 saat önce

ByteDance Adopts Arm CPUs, Jensen Huang: So Sad I Didn't Buy Arm

marsbit1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures

Popüler Makaleler

LINK Nasıl Satın Alınır

HTX.com’a hoş geldiniz! ChainLink (LINK) satın alma işlemlerini basit ve kullanışlı bir hâle getirdik. Adım adım açıkladığımız rehberimizi takip ederek kripto yolculuğunuza başlayın. 1. Adım: HTX Hesabınızı OluşturunHTX'te ücretsiz bir hesap açmak için e-posta adresinizi veya telefon numaranızı kullanın. Sorunsuzca kaydolun ve tüm özelliklerin kilidini açın. Hesabımı Aç2. Adım: Kripto Satın Al Bölümüne Gidin ve Ödeme Yönteminizi SeçinKredi/Banka Kartı: Visa veya Mastercard'ınızı kullanarak anında ChainLink (LINK) satın alın.Bakiye: Sorunsuz bir şekilde işlem yapmak için HTX hesap bakiyenizdeki fonları kullanın.Üçüncü Taraflar: Kullanımı kolaylaştırmak için Google Pay ve Apple Pay gibi popüler ödeme yöntemlerini ekledik.P2P: HTX'teki diğer kullanıcılarla doğrudan işlem yapın.Borsa Dışı (OTC): Yatırımcılar için kişiye özel hizmetler ve rekabetçi döviz kurları sunuyoruz.3. Adım: ChainLink (LINK) Varlıklarınızı SaklayınChainLink (LINK) satın aldıktan sonra HTX hesabınızda saklayın. Alternatif olarak, blok zinciri transferi yoluyla başka bir yere gönderebilir veya diğer kripto para birimlerini takas etmek için kullanabilirsiniz.4. Adım: ChainLink (LINK) Varlıklarınızla İşlem YapınHTX'in spot piyasasında ChainLink (LINK) ile kolayca işlemler yapın.Hesabınıza erişin, işlem çiftinizi seçin, işlemlerinizi gerçekleştirin ve gerçek zamanlı olarak izleyin. Hem yeni başlayanlar hem de deneyimli yatırımcılar için kullanıcı dostu bir deneyim sunuyoruz.

883 Toplam GörüntülenmeYayınlanma 2024.12.13Güncellenme 2026.06.02

LINK Nasıl Satın Alınır

Tartışmalar

HTX Topluluğuna hoş geldiniz. Burada, en son platform gelişmeleri hakkında bilgi sahibi olabilir ve profesyonel piyasa görüşlerine erişebilirsiniz. Kullanıcıların LINK (LINK) fiyatı hakkındaki görüşleri aşağıda sunulmaktadır.

活动图片