# DeFi — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-25 10:43 UTC)
## @equipedefrance (Equipe de France ⭐⭐) · 09-25 10:15 · ♥262 ↻26 💬5 Prêts pour ce premier défi 👊
🇹🇷🇫🇷 à 20h45 sur TF1 📺 https://t.co/r4ikNrrOQc https://x.com/equipedefrance/status/2103428044950056964
## @Crypto_Holding_ (Crypto Holding™ 💎) · 09-25 09:20 · ♥88 ↻63 💬25 🗓️ @Buddy_Boo_io MINT DAY - OCTOBER 31 . 5 PM UTC on @opensea
7,777 unique Buddy Boo 2D #NFTs Handcrafted by designers, featuring 100+ different accessories.
➡️ Next chapter: FREE 3D Buddy Boo for every 2D holder & your own haunted mansion to decorate.
Hundreds of items, each in 5 rarities with distinct textures. 5 random items per chest.
🎮 Game in development.
🖼️ https://t.co/tV01BYgpnm
#Crypto #NFT #ETH #Ethereum #Bullrun #DeFi https://x.com/Crypto_Holding_/status/2103414261766566008
## @Arpon_360 (Arpon) · 09-25 08:53 · ♥101 ↻1 💬108 The headline "Bring BTC onchain" sounds good.
The part that interests me even more is the situation that occurs before BTC actually gets to the DeFi side.
By using strkBTC on @Starknet , you can begin from your own wallet rather than having to make an exchange as your first step.
You can go from BTC through GardenFi to Starknet, after which you have the choice of looking at the available apps and the various ways in which you can put that liquidity to use.
It does make the experience a bit different.
The wallet is in the middle of the journey.
BTC starts there.
It introduces the bridge into the Starknet ecosystem.
It then comes down to your choice: whether to hold the asset, to explore DeFi opportunities, or to use tools such as Xverse, depending on what you really want to do with it.
By no means does this eliminate the ordinary risks.
Bridges are subject to risks associated with both smart contracts and the underlying infrastructure. Liquidity is important. The applications themselves have their own risks. Market conditions may change rapidly.
That is to say, onchain BTC is not risk free BTC.
What gives the direction its interest is the idea that lies behind it.
Although bitcoin has a great deal of liquidity, merely holding bitcoin does not provide that liquidity with anywhere for it to go.
strkBTC is part of the effort to link Bitcoin liquidity with Starknet's DeFi environment while still making the wallet the starting point.
That seems to be a more direct way of thinking about BTCFi.
That's not merely taking BTC onto the blockchain.
Putting it somewhere where it can be put to good use.
Would you go straight to your own wallet or still prefer to use an exchange first? https://x.com/Arpon_360/status/2103407453237076404
## @Tanaka_L2 (Tanaka) · 09-25 09:04 · ♥93 ↻2 💬30 The onchain credit stacks.
Most DeFi lending still requires users to deposit more collateral than they borrow. That is useful for leverage, but it is not real credit.
Previous models removed collateral without building sufficient systems for identity, credit history and enforcement.
The defaults experienced by early onchain lenders showed why those functions cannot be skipped.
I now divide the onchain credit stack into 3 layers:
identity → trust record → recourse
[1] Identity
A lender first needs to determine whether the borrower is a real, unique and accountable person or business.
Projects I’m watching here:
– @worldnetwork provides privacy-preserving proof that a borrower is a unique human.
– @privy_io introduces wallet based on your social ID.
– @DivineResearch uses World ID inside World App to issue small unsecured loans through progressive trust.
– @PrivadoID allows borrowers to prove specific identity or financial attributes without publicly exposing the underlying data.
Divine is currently the clearest example of identity being converted into credit.
Borrowers start with a small limit and unlock more capital through successful repayments, eventually reaching up to $1,000.
I like this model because it limits initial exposure while producing real repayment data.
However, identity only tells a lender who is borrowing. It does not prove that the borrower will repay or provide a recovery path after default.
[2] Trust records
The next layer converts historical behavior into a measurable risk signal.
Projects I’m watching:
– @ethos_network builds reputation from reviews, vouches, slashing and staked ETH.
– @credifi uses Ethos scores to offer loans of up to $3,000 without collateral.
– @ChainAware combines credit history with wallet behavior, fraud probability and risk classifications.
This is where onchain data becomes financially useful.
A wallet’s age, repayment behavior, liquidation history and counterparties can help lenders price risk instead of applying the same collateral requirement to everyone.
I find Ethos particularly interesting because reputation providers also put capital and credibility at risk.
But a score is still a prediction. It can improve underwriting, while offering limited protection when a borrower actually defaults.
[3] Recourse and structured credit
This layer defines who owns the claim, who absorbs losses and how lenders recover capital.
Projects I’m watching:
– @3janexyz connects stablecoin capital with fintech originators, SPVs, loan servicing, tranching and licensed collections.
– @humafinance finances payment and receivable flows using onchain liquidity and offchain underwriting.
– @centrifuge provides infrastructure for compliant tokenized funds and real-world credit assets.
– @maplefinance combines onchain lending markets with professional institutional underwriting and transparent loan management.
– @goldfinch_fi Prime brings established private-credit funds and senior secured loan exposure onchain.
3Jane is currently the model I find most complete.
It offers fintech lenders credit facilities ranging from $5M to $200M and recently completed an approximately $8.5M purchase of SMB credit receivables.
The financial structure is clear:
→ stablecoins provide capital
→ fintechs originate and service loans
→ SPVs hold the legal assets
→ tranches allocate losses
→ collections provide enforcement
It is less crypto-native than pure wallet-based lending, but I think it currently has the strongest path toward scale.
A functional credit market needs these systems to connect.
I think onchain lending can expand beyond collateralized crypto leverage and become a real credit market. https://x.com/Tanaka_L2/status/2103410227412705526
## @BSCNews (BSCN) · 09-25 07:27 · ♥72 ↻13 💬17 EU Watchdog Targets Crypto Lending Under MiCA
The European Banking Authority wants crypto lending brought under the EU's MiCA framework.
The regulator urged the European Commission to assess new rules for crypto borrowing and lending. Potential measures include suitability tests, leverage limits and stronger disclosure requirements.
The EBA also suggested oversight for firms giving users access to DeFi lending protocols.
It said crypto lending already operates across at least 16 EU member states.
The recommendations are part of the European Commission's broader MiCA review. https://x.com/BSCNews/status/2103385941301940724
## @DamiDefi (Dami-Defi) · 09-25 09:12 · ♥93 ↻5 💬4 Most AI agents are built to act.
The interesting ones are being built to decide first.
This builder put Jev inside an agentic coding harness to handle bounded choices like:
→ Which model should run the task? → Inspect, implement, verify, or answer? → Which tools should be available next?
Jev returns a typed decision, while the host validates it before anything executes.
That creates a cleaner architecture:
Model decides. Harness controls. Tools execute.
The bigger idea is turning every agent decision into something you can trace, test, replay, and improve. > 引用 @Av1dlive: How to Build Agentic Harness using Jev (Builder's Guide) https://x.com/DamiDefi/status/2103412266368659854
## @2xnmore (2xnmore) · 09-25 10:00 · ♥73 ↻3 💬7 BlackRock did not put a fund onchain.
It sold Ondo a recipe, kept a fee conflict in the footnotes, and took no duty to the people holding the token.
That is the part almost nobody is reading.
The market heard "BlackRock portfolios as a token" and priced a fairy tale: the world's largest asset manager is now managing money onchain.
Read the product. That is not what launched.
BlackRock supplied a nondiscretionary model.
A model is a target mix on a slide. It is not a mandate, not a fund, and not a client relationship.
Ondo then does the real work.
It picks how to implement the model, issues the token, trades the basket, runs the rebalance, takes the service fee, and sits between you and the underlying stocks.
BlackRock is explicit about what it is not.
Not the adviser. Not the manager. Not the sponsor. Not the distributor.
It has no discretion and no duty to tokenholders. It makes no promise the onchain portfolio even stays in line with the model, and it has no obligation to keep updating the strategy.
So the headline is institutional.
The legal structure is a white label allocation engine with a famous name on the lid.
Now the angle most people miss.
BlackRock can put its own funds inside those models.
If the onchain portfolio buys BlackRock managed products, BlackRock and its affiliates get paid for managing those funds.
The disclosure says the quiet part out loud: that creates an incentive to design a mix that routes more compensation back to BlackRock.
So "powered by BlackRock" can mean two things at once.
The allocation looks institutional. The allocator has a reason to prefer its own shelf.
That is not a conspiracy. It is how model portfolios have worked in TradFi for years.
Ondo just put the same machine onchain and gave it a ticker.
Then look at what you actually own.
You do not own the stocks. You do not get voting rights. You do not get a fund share.
You get economic exposure to a basket of Ondo's tokenized stocks and ETFs, packaged as a separate security issued by Ondo.
Dividends get reinvested, minus withholding.
A service fee bleeds out of the token price every day.
Mint and redeem cost extra at the constituent level.
The platform can keep a spread between the quote it shows you and the price it transacts in the underlying.
That is not an ETF with a BlackRock wrapper.
It is Ondo becoming the asset manager, using BlackRock as the model vendor.
The new part is not the logo. The new part is that this whole package is a token.
A token can be posted as collateral. It can sit under a perps position. It can go inside another portfolio.
Ondo's own roadmap says the end state is a single token that mixes stocks, ETFs, perps, crypto, options and hedges.
That is the real shift.
Allocation itself becomes composable leverage.
Which is why the ethereum:0xfaba6f8e4a5e8ab82f62fe7c39859fa577269be3 question is sharper than "is this bullish."
Ondo just moved from selling ingredients to charging for the meal. The fee logic is inside the product.
What is still missing is any clean statement that those fees, that spread, or that future "portfolio of everything" flow back to the token.
BlackRock extracted the valuable thing it actually owns: model IP and brand, with limited operating risk and a disclosed conflict.
Ondo extracted the valuable thing it actually owns: issuance, inventory, rebalancing, geography and DeFi rails.
Tokenholders are being asked to assume they sit in the middle of that stack.
Until the fee switch is visible, this is not proof that ethereum:0xfaba6f8e4a5e8ab82f62fe7c39859fa577269be3 became an asset manager.
It is proof that Ondo did.
The market is celebrating the brand. The product is a licensing deal with a rebalancing bot.
https://t.co/p6xL4d9VZZ https://x.com/2xnmore/status/2103424280218554400