Author: thedefinvestor Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain Last week was a bad week for DeFi. It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week: Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million. Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy. Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack. Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation. So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance. This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler. In short, here's what happened: CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency. Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon." This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously. Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet. This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet. A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo. Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy. With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds. According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance! Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable. As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses. What can we learn from this? Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols. However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse. Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money. I have a few suggestions: Always verify the exact source of income. Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets. Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good. Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough. Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research. If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return. Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it. No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)? Don't put all your eggs in one basket. As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp. No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur. In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money. It's always better to be safe than to regret.Author: thedefinvestor Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain Last week was a bad week for DeFi. It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week: Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million. Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy. Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack. Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation. So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance. This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler. In short, here's what happened: CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency. Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon." This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously. Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet. This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet. A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo. Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy. With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds. According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance! Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable. As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses. What can we learn from this? Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols. However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse. Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money. I have a few suggestions: Always verify the exact source of income. Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets. Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good. Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough. Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research. If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return. Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it. No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)? Don't put all your eggs in one basket. As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp. No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur. In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money. It's always better to be safe than to regret.

What can we learn from the successive collapses of multiple DeFi projects?

2025/11/10 15:00

Author: thedefinvestor

Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain

Last week was a bad week for DeFi.

It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week:

  • Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million.
  • Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy.
  • Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack.
  • Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation.

So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance.

This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler.

In short, here's what happened:

  • CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency.

Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon."

  • This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously.
  • Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet.

This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet.

A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo.

Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy.

With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds.

According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance!

Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable.

As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses.

What can we learn from this?

Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols.

However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse.

Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money.

I have a few suggestions:

  • Always verify the exact source of income.

Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets.

Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good.

  • Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough.

Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research.

If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return.

Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it.

No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)?

  • Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp.

No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur.

In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money.

It's always better to be safe than to regret.

Market Opportunity
Brainedge Logo
Brainedge Price(LEARN)
$0.00909
$0.00909$0.00909
+0.55%
USD
Brainedge (LEARN) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Slate Milk Raises $23 Million Series B Round To Bolster Protein Drink’s Rapid Growth

Slate Milk Raises $23 Million Series B Round To Bolster Protein Drink’s Rapid Growth

The post Slate Milk Raises $23 Million Series B Round To Bolster Protein Drink’s Rapid Growth appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Slate Classic Chocolate milk shake Slate A new slate of functional beverages is about to dominate the ready-to-drink shelf, ushering in a more modern era of easily incorporating more protein in our diets. Today, Slate Milk cofounders Manny Lubin and Josh Belinsky reveal the brand has raised a $23 million Series B funding round. Led by Foundership, a new fund by Yasso frozen greek yogurt cofounders Drew Harrington and Amanda Klane, the money will allow Slate to continue its momentum towards ubiquity as it hits 100,000 points of distribution across 20,000 stores nationwide by the end of 2025. Slate also reveals that it is rolling out several line extensions including a 20 gram protein Strawberry milk at Sprouts Farmers Market, a 30 gram protein Cookies & Cream milk at Target, and a 30 gram protein Salted Caramel flavor at Walmart and Albertsons banner stores. New “Ultra” 42 gram protein options in Chocolate, Vanilla and Salted Caramel will also be available in retailers across the country. “Stores where we may have just had our ready-to-drink lattes, now we’re adding our shakes, and vice versa. We’re adding new partners and executing deeper with our existing partners,” Lubin tells me. The impressive growth is due to Slate’s early entry into the high-protein product space slightly before it caught mainstream attention–ready to execute immediately once consumers craved it most. Slate’s macronutrient ratios are practically unbeatable, largely due to the utilization of ultra-filtered milk. It’s a protein drink that writes a new script about who protein drinks are for. “We’re not sons of dairy farmers. We had no milk history,” Lubin says “We’re just a couple of dudes from the burbs of Boston who like chocolate milk.” Slate cofounder Manny Lubin Slate Another Clean Slate Slate’s brand has evolved significantly in just the past six…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/19 03:08
The HackerNoon Newsletter: New frontiers in Human AI Interface (9/19/2025)

The HackerNoon Newsletter: New frontiers in Human AI Interface (9/19/2025)

How are you, hacker? 🪐 What’s happening in tech today, September 19, 2025? The HackerNoon Newsletter brings the HackerNoon homepage straight to your inbox. On this day, First Smiley Emoticon Created by Fahlman in 1982, US-led Invasion Restores Democracy to Haiti in 1994, New Zealand Grants Women's Suffrage in 1893, and we present you with these top quality stories. From Spacecraft From the 90s, or Why Humanity Uses Last Centurys Technology in Space to New frontiers in Human AI Interface, let’s dive right in. Spacecraft From the 90s, or Why Humanity Uses Last Centurys Technology in Space By @nftbro [ 9 Min read ] In “small space”, the priorities are different: low cost, rapid iteration, and the use of CubeSats on Raspberry Pi and Linux containers. Read More. New frontiers in Human AI Interface By @zbruceli [ 12 Min read ] Recent tech advances are breaking free from 20 years of 5-inch screen limits, unlocking full human senses in computing through AI interfaces and wearables. Read More. Microsoft’s LinkedIn Still Sucks, But Outsmarting Its Algorithm Is Hilariously Easy By @frankmorgan [ 3 Min read ] A cheeky experiment uses ChatGPT to slip LinkedIn’s walled garden, proving off-platform links still win—and why MS’s Dismal Platform must pivot or die. Read More. AI Startup Surge Risks Repeating Tech’s Last Funding Mania By @youcefhq [ 4 Min read ] The AI startup frenzy and FOMO are inflating round sizes and valuations. But too much capital too early often leads to mediocre outcomes. Remake of 2020–22? Read More. Passive Income in Crypto: Why Waiting for Altseason Is a Bad Strategy By @MichaelJerlis [ 4 Min read ] Discover the most reliable passive income strategies in crypto for 2025 — from tokenized treasuries to staking, lending, farming, and more. Read More. 🧑‍💻 What happened in your world this week? It's been said that writing can help consolidate technical knowledge, establish credibility, and contribute to emerging community standards. Feeling stuck? We got you covered ⬇️⬇️⬇️ ANSWER THESE GREATEST INTERVIEW QUESTIONS OF ALL TIME We hope you enjoy this worth of free reading material. Feel free to forward this email to a nerdy friend who'll love you for it.See you on Planet Internet! With love, The HackerNoon Team ✌️
Share
Hackernoon2025/09/20 00:02
Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns

Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns

The post Bitcoin devs cheer block reconstruction stats, ignore security budget concerns appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. This morning, Bitcoin Core developers celebrated improved block reconstruction statistics for node operators while conveniently ignoring the reason for these statistics — the downward trend in fees for Bitcoin’s security budget. Reacting with heart emojis and thumbs up to a green chart showing over 80% “successful compact block reconstructions without any requested transactions,” they conveniently omitted red trend lines of the fees that Bitcoin users pay for mining security which powered those green statistics. Block reconstructions occur when a node requests additional information about transactions within a compact block. Although compact blocks allow nodes to quickly relay valid bundles of transactions across the internet, the more frequently that nodes can reconstruct without extra, cumbersome transaction requests from their peers is a positive trend. Because so many nodes switched over in August to relay transactions bidding 0.1 sat/vB across their mempools, nodes now have to request less transaction data to reconstruct blocks containing sub-1 sat/vB transactions. After nodes switched over in August to accept and relay pending transactions bidding less than 1 sat/vB, disparate mempools became harmonized as most nodes had a better view of which transactions would likely join upcoming blocks. As a result, block reconstruction times improved, as nodes needed less information about these sub-1 sat/vB transactions. In July, several miners admitted that user demand for Bitcoin blockspace had persisted at such a low that they were willing to accept transaction fees of just 0.1 satoshi per virtual byte — 90% lower than their prior 1 sat/vB minimum. With so many blocks partially empty, they succumbed to the temptation to accept at least something — even 1 billionth of one bitcoin (BTC) — rather than $0 to fill up some of the excess blockspace. Read more: Bitcoin’s transaction fees have fallen to a multi-year low Green stats for block reconstruction after transaction fees crash After…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:07