# DeFi — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-22 08:47 UTC)
## @ox_reyy (Defi Rey 👑) · 09-22 07:32 · ♥80 ↻7 💬68 gm ct
a focus man is a potential champion,stay focused bro https://t.co/igQ4aGDZJW https://x.com/ox_reyy/status/2102299864440717369
## @TheEmmiX (𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐦𝐦𝐢) · 09-22 07:06 · ♥111 ↻3 💬27 Something interesting is happening with Ethereum on Binance.
The exchange is now holding around 3.6M ETH, which is quite a bit lower than what we saw in previous years.
That doesn’t mean ETH automatically goes up, but there is less ETH sitting on Binance that could be sold.
Some of it is likely moving into staking, DeFi or cold wallets.
If this keeps going while demand picks up, the amount of ETH actually available on exchanges could start getting pretty tight. https://x.com/TheEmmiX/status/2102293402695938108
## @Tanaka_L2 (Tanaka) · 09-22 07:12 · ♥109 ↻2 💬29 Tokenizing another ticker is already becoming the easy part in tokenized stock.
If we don't mention @bstocksfinance with Binance's distribution moat, we basically got 2 projects taking ~46% of the market now.
– Ondo leads with ~$852M / ~27.9%
– xStocks issues $560M / ~18.3%
– xStocks markets somewhere around 840+ assets while Ondo has 440+
xStocks can have hundreds more tickers and Ondo can still hold more capital.
The data actually reflects that split pretty cleanly. Ondo leads in value, but xStocks is way ahead on crypto-native distribution.
@xStocksFi are bearer debt/tracker certificates backed by the underlying assets.
– crossed $40B+ cumulative volume, with $20B+ onchain
– Solana has done $6B xStocks volume, 54% of all tokenized-stock volume on the chain
– 611K asset holders
– $111M across 15 protocols, ~58% of stock-in-DeFi deposits
– Q3 @Raydium stock volume hit ~$2.3B, with SPYx/CRCLx/TSLAx/NVDAx/QQQx doing 64.5%
So xStocks basically found where crypto users already are, then shoved equities directly into the existing loop.
Their playbook is Kraken puts xStocks in front of users → OKX/others distribute → self-custody + multichain spread → DEX/DeFi integrate → liquidity attracts the next exchange/dev.
@Ondo approaches it much closer to the primary-market/NAV pipe.
Ondo Stocks are structured-note debt instruments backed by the referenced securities.
Eligible users can mint/redeem through the platform, and six of the most liquid names now have 24/7 mint/redemption.
Behind that sits Clearstream, SBI, Oasis Pro, broker/dealer relationships, transfer-agent infra and DTCC-related work.
– $246M 30d volume
– $26B total volume
– $9.1B total mint/redeem volume
– $16.7B total CEX volume, $233M CEX holdings
– @OndoPerps executed $13B volume with $89M OI
They're pushing a smaller stock footprint deeper into collateral, derivatives and regulated financial infra through @Morpho, @eulerfinance, Ondo Perps + the institutional stack around it.
But neither has fully closed the loop yet imo.
They're still mostly at the stage of wrapping liquid stocks, putting them onchain, then adding some collateral use around them.
I want to see meaningful AUM sitting across lending markets, cross-margin engines and billions in open positions, until changing issuers actually becomes painful.
Right now both are leading the issuance market, but the next job is making the assets already issued more productive. > 引用 @Tanaka_L2: Without DeFi, does RWA still make sense?
I have spent a lot of time tracking tokenized treasuries, private credit, stocks, and funds.
RWA still has value without DeFi, but most of that value comes from better issuance, settlement, distribution, and ownership records.
The larger opportunity starts when the asset becomes usable.
A tokenized Treasury fund that only sits in a wallet is still a Treasury fund. The format has changed, but its financial function has not.
Once that token can be used as collateral, borrowed against, traded, hedged, or added to an automated strategy, it becomes part of an active capital market.
This is why I see tokenization as the first stage, not the final product.
If an RWA reaches its liquidation threshold on Sunday, a smart contract can seize the token immediately.
But the underlying fund may not process the redemption until Monday or Tuesday.
The token has been liquidated onchain, but the actual asset has not been converted into cash.
This timing gap is one of the biggest risks in RWA-based DeFi.
It also explains why a low-volatility Treasury token can sometimes require a larger collateral discount than ETH.
ETH is volatile, but it trades continuously. An RWA price can look stable because its NAV has not been updated.
» The current projects make this distinction clearer:
[1] @Ondo = how the market is moving beyond issuance.
Ondo Stocks now covers more than 440 tokenized stocks and ETFs, with about $1.04 billion in TVL. More importantly, Ondo is making these assets usable in DeFi.
SPYon and QQQon can now be used as collateral for equity, commodity, and index perps on Ondo Perps.
Ondo has also introduced 24/7 minting and redemption for eligible users.
The asset is no longer only giving users price exposure. It can support margin, continuous liquidity, and hedging.
This is much closer to the functionality investors already expect from mature financial markets.
[2] I see a similar transition with @centrifuge and @aave Horizon.
Centrifuge handles the tokenization and management of institutional funds.
Aave Horizon lets qualified investors use those tokenized assets as collateral to borrow stablecoins.
A recent example is the planned deployment of up to $100 million of JAAA, a tokenized AAA CLO fund, through Resolv and Aave Horizon.
JAAA is not being held only for its underlying yield. It is being used as collateral inside a stablecoin strategy.
That is the difference between tokenized ownership and financial utility.
[3] @Morpho is solving another important part of the problem.
RWA collateral cannot always share the same risk settings as ETH, BTC, or liquid staking tokens.
Each fund can have different redemption periods, legal restrictions, pricing methods, and eligible investors.
Morpho’s isolated lending markets allow curators to set specific collateral parameters for each RWA.
This does not remove the underlying risk, but it limits how easily one failed market can affect unrelated lenders.
[4] @plumenetwork shows what happens when several DeFi functions are added around the same RWA position.
Users can deposit into RWA-backed vaults, borrow against the resulting tokens through Morpho, or trade the future yield through Pendle.
I find this direction much more interesting than simply adding more assets onchain.
It creates several possible actions from one position:
– hold the asset and earn its underlying yield
– borrow stablecoins without selling it
– provide liquidity to borrowers
– fix the future yield
– take a view on whether the yield will rise or fall
This is where DeFi adds clear value.
[5] @chainlink
Data is part of the product
None of these markets can operate safely without reliable data.
A lending protocol needs more than the latest quoted price.
It may need current NAV, assets under management, reserve information, redemption status, market depth, and proof that the underlying assets still exist.
Chainlink SmartData is relevant here because it brings NAV, AUM, yield, and reserve data onchain.
Its Proof of Reserve system can also connect reserve information to actions such as minting limits or circuit breakers.
A Treasury may be low-risk in a brokerage account and still be difficult collateral inside a 24/7 lending market.
» DeFi creates utility, but also leverage
I am excited about RWA and DeFi coming together, but I do not think every tokenized asset should become collateral.
Leverage increases capital efficiency, but it also connects risks that were previously separate.
A user could deposit a tokenized stock, borrow stablecoins against it, and use those stablecoins to open a leveraged long position on the same stock.
If the stock falls outside US trading hours, the collateral and the perp position can both lose value.
Market makers may reduce liquidity at the same time. The system then needs to liquidate an asset while its primary market is closed.
So, does RWA work without DeFi?
Yes.
But it does not fully change what the asset can do.
The next phase of RWA will not be measured only by how much value is tokenized.
I will be watching how much of that value can be financed, traded, hedged, and liquidated safely.
That is when RWA starts becoming a new financial market, rather than a new format for existing assets. https://x.com/Tanaka_L2/status/2102295008779092438
## @TheDeFiAngel (THE ANGEL) · 09-22 05:36 · ♥71 ↻4 💬33 ➠ @RealityFi_xyz went from launching in June to entering the top 5 tokenized-stock protocols by AUM in roughly 3 months.
The numbers explain why I’m paying attention:
• $190M+ in rToken value • $2.15B+ cumulative trading volume • $50M+ average daily volume on Bitget • $100M+ AUM within its first month • 1,700+ tokenized stocks & ETFs • ~95% of U.S. stock trading volume covered
The point is the architecture.
rTokens are backed 1:1 by the underlying stocks/ETFs, with custody through a FINRA-registered, SIPC-member broker and securities registered with DTCC.
Reality also separates issuance, custody and reserve verification.
That matters because tokenized equities need more than a token that tracks a stock price.
They need liquidity, custody, compliance and proof that the underlying asset actually exists.
Reality attacks liquidity from another angle.
It supports direct market access, RFQ and on-chain liquidity, with orders able to reach Nasdaq and NYSE liquidity.
The result is a model where onchain assets can connect to existing TradFi market infrastructure instead of trying to recreate it from scratch.
Then there is distribution.
Reality is already integrated across @bitget ecosystem for margin, lending, staking, grid and copy trading, while Bitget Wallet recently brought 1,700+ rTokens to its user base.
This is where tokenized stocks become more than a trading product.
A stock can become an onchain asset that can move through wallets, exchanges and DeFi applications while retaining exposure to the underlying security.
Tokenization is moving from:
“Put a stock onchain”
to
“Build financial infrastructure around an onchain stock.”
Reality’s next test is expansion: more jurisdictions, more asset classes and deeper liquidity.
The early numbers show that the market is already rewarding a broader approach. https://x.com/TheDeFiAngel/status/2102270866666979670
## @0xQuantic (Quantic) · 09-22 05:11 · ♥72 ↻12 💬3 XRP is about to have two completely different credit engines running around the same asset.
XLS-66 and XRP-backed DeFi solve different parts of the credit problem.
XLS-66 can make borrowing more capital-efficient because the borrower doesn’t need to post onchain collateral.
The tradeoff is that someone has to underwrite the borrower, price the credit risk and deal with defaults.
FXRP lending replaces borrower-specific credit assessment with collateral-based risk management.
The tradeoff is overcollateralization, sufficient liquidity and liquidations.
Put both into the broader XRP stack and builders are no longer limited to one credit model.
They can build around borrower credit and cash flows when that makes sense, or liquid XRP collateral when it doesn’t.
That opens a much more complete credit design space around XRP. > 引用 @FlareDevHub: XLS-66 and XRP-collateralized DeFi: two different credit primitives for developers.
XLS-66 is designed around borrower credit.
Liquidity sits in XRPL Single Asset Vaults, loans are fixed-term, underwriting happens offchain, and first-loss capital helps absorb defaults. Building on it means thinking about borrowers, underwriting standards, repayment schedules, loan brokers and default risk.
Collateralized DeFi takes a different approach.
XRP becomes FXRP, FXRP is deposited into a lending market, and borrowing capacity is determined by the value of the collateral. That requires reliable pricing, liquidity and liquidations rather than borrower underwriting.
These models complement each other.
XLS-66 can support underwritten credit where the identity and creditworthiness of the borrower matter.
FXRP + Smart Accounts can support permissionless XRP-backed credit where the collateral itself secures the debt, while XRPL remains the user control layer. https://x.com/0xQuantic/status/2102264556890345615
## @aescobar0g (aescobar🛡️) · 09-22 00:21 · ♥70 ↻6 💬3 Just to be clear
Raydium > 900M FDV Uniswap > 8B FDV Aerodrome > 1.3B FDV Aave > 2.3B FDV Morpho > 3.64B FDV
They all in EVMs The chain of DeFi where instituion simply care about
$RHEA exist not in EVM Rhea exist in the market of market serving $ZEC & $NEAR
You need to read how RHEA allow the lending market and DEX powering NEAR Intent solver
Once you understood. You have diff perspective https://x.com/aescobar0g/status/2102191594527211848