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
4분 읽기
이 콘텐츠에 대한 의견이나 우려 사항이 있으시면 crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락주시기 바랍니다

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.

시장 기회
Brainedge 로고
Brainedge 가격(LEARN)
$0.006647
$0.006647$0.006647
+0.09%
USD
Brainedge (LEARN) 실시간 가격 차트
면책 조항: 본 사이트에 재게시된 글들은 공개 플랫폼에서 가져온 것으로 정보 제공 목적으로만 제공됩니다. 이는 반드시 MEXC의 견해를 반영하는 것은 아닙니다. 모든 권리는 원저자에게 있습니다. 제3자의 권리를 침해하는 콘텐츠가 있다고 판단될 경우, crypto.news@mexc.com으로 연락하여 삭제 요청을 해주시기 바랍니다. MEXC는 콘텐츠의 정확성, 완전성 또는 시의적절성에 대해 어떠한 보증도 하지 않으며, 제공된 정보에 기반하여 취해진 어떠한 조치에 대해서도 책임을 지지 않습니다. 본 콘텐츠는 금융, 법률 또는 기타 전문적인 조언을 구성하지 않으며, MEXC의 추천이나 보증으로 간주되어서는 안 됩니다.

추천 콘텐츠

Coinbase Urges Treasury to Clarify GENIUS Act Implementation

Coinbase Urges Treasury to Clarify GENIUS Act Implementation

The post Coinbase Urges Treasury to Clarify GENIUS Act Implementation appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Coinbase has called on the U.S. Treasury Department to provide clearer guidance on the implementation of the GENIUS Act, warning that excessive regulation could undermine innovation and weaken the country’s position as a global leader in digital finance. Source: Coinbase In an official statement, Coinbase’s Director of Policy, Faryar Shirzad, said that new rules should “ensure the competitiveness of U.S. stablecoins and create conditions for their global adoption as a payment instrument.” The exchange cautioned the Treasury against introducing restrictions not explicitly outlined in the law, urging policymakers to focus on innovation rather than limitation. Coinbase’s Recommendations for the GENIUS Framework In its response, Coinbase proposed several key adjustments to the regulatory framework. It suggested that non-financial software developers, blockchain validators, and open protocols be excluded from GENIUS compliance requirements. The company also argued that the ban on interest payments should apply only to stablecoin issuers, not to exchanges or intermediaries offering bonus programs or loyalty rewards. Coinbase emphasized that rewards from third parties should not be considered a violation, warning that a broad definition of “interest” could distort the intent of the legislation. The firm additionally proposed that payment stablecoins be treated as cash equivalents for accounting and tax purposes — a move it said would “reflect their real-world use as stable digital currencies.” The GENIUS Act and Its Impact Signed into law in July 2025, the GENIUS Act marked the first comprehensive federal regulation of the U.S. stablecoin market. The law requires that all stablecoins be fully backed by liquid assets, mandates annual audits for issuers, and sets rules for foreign-issued tokens operating in the U.S. market. Coinbase urged regulators to uphold Congress’s original intent, emphasizing that effective policy should allow innovation to grow within the framework of the law, not in defiance of it. Not all lawmakers…
공유하기
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/11/07 02:16
Q2 Market Insights: Bitcoin regains dominance in risk-averse environment, ETFs remain critical to market structure

Q2 Market Insights: Bitcoin regains dominance in risk-averse environment, ETFs remain critical to market structure

The market will show a downward trend in the short term, and then rebound and set new highs in the second half of the year.
공유하기
PANews2025/04/28 19:40
Critical USDT0 Response to Drift Hack Exposes Stark Contrast in Stablecoin Security Protocols

Critical USDT0 Response to Drift Hack Exposes Stark Contrast in Stablecoin Security Protocols

BitcoinWorld Critical USDT0 Response to Drift Hack Exposes Stark Contrast in Stablecoin Security Protocols In a decisive security move that highlights evolving
공유하기
bitcoinworld2026/04/02 17:15

$30,000 in PRL + 15,000 USDT

$30,000 in PRL + 15,000 USDT$30,000 in PRL + 15,000 USDT

Deposit & trade PRL to boost your rewards!