Solana DeFi · X 热门 · 2026-09-22 09:19 UTC

# Solana DeFi — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-22 09:19 UTC)

## @Route2FI (Route 2 FI) · 09-21 15:45 · ♥457 ↻25 💬16 $SUI up over 50% over the last few days. However, it's still 80% down from it's $5.35 ATH, and still lots of room to run if momentum holds up. One of the winners last cycle fr.

$550m TVL rn, but the ecosystem is also expanding across DeFi, stablecoins, gaming and consumer apps.

Tbh, Sui doesn’t need to kill Ethereum or replace Solana. The bet is that crypto becomes much larger, and I think Sui captures a meaningful share of that growth going forward.

Higher. https://x.com/Route2FI/status/2102061694407028899

## @Tanaka_L2 (Tanaka) · 09-22 07:12 · ♥123 ↻2 💬32 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

## @Elikrypt (ΞLIKRYPTO) · 09-22 05:10 · ♥71 ↻1 💬36 THE TWO CRYPTO INFRASTRUCTURE SHUTTING DOWN

Two crypto infrastructure projects announced shutdowns within a day of each other.

@linera_io stopped operations on September 18 after it couldn’t secure enough funding to keep working toward mainnet.

Linera had raised around $12M across two funding rounds. It was building a Layer 1 around microchains, giving applications their own execution space instead of having everything compete for the same blockspace.

Its final $LNRA community sale needed at least $1.5M USDC.

It raised $848,271 from 617 participants. That wasn’t enough, so the contributions were refunded.

The team then tried to secure emergency funding to keep development going, but that also fell through.

Linera eventually shut down before launching its mainnet.

@SwitchboardFDN is a different case.

It is ending its oracle operations on September 25, affecting 550+ feeds across 53 Solana programs.

Among the affected protocols are @Kamino_Finance, @jito_sol, @marginfi and @DriftProtocol.

Switchboard provides price data that DeFi protocols use to value collateral and manage lending positions.

Take MarginFi. It checks how fresh its oracle prices are, and those prices can be needed when users borrow, withdraw or get liquidated.

Now those protocols have to move their feeds to other providers.

Switchboard has pointed affected users toward alternatives including @PythNetwork and @redstone_defi.

The two shutdowns are happening for very different reasons.

Linera couldn’t raise enough money to reach mainnet. Switchboard is stepping away while its infrastructure is already being used by live protocols.

That creates two very different problems.

Linera needed more capital to keep building.

Switchboard’s users now need to migrate critical feeds and make sure borrowing and liquidations still work once those feeds are gone.

And that’s what stands out to me.

In crypto, building the technology is only part of the job. It also has to survive when funding changes or an important piece of infrastructure disappears. https://x.com/Elikrypt/status/2102264232813244570