# DeFi — X 热门讨论 (2026-09-25 15:39 UTC)
## @monad (Monad) · 09-25 14:51 · ♥107 ↻16 💬30 We sat down with @cryptoquantopia from @ClearStreetLLC to chat about how traditional finance and crypto will converge
Timestamps 👇
0:00 Intro 0:29 Meet David Martin, Clear Street Digital 1:20 From hedge fund to crypto prime brokerage 3:43 Why open markets drew him to crypto 5:43 Institutional crypto infrastructure matures 9:14 What still blocks institutional DeFi 12:00 Why blockchain performance matters 13:45 Low-latency trading on chain 15:45 Tokenized collateral and 24/7 finance 21:25 Building an on-chain prime brokerage stack 24:10 When DeFi investors want TradFi access 27:29 Clear Street, Monad and the institutional bridge https://x.com/monad/status/2103497537592131752
## @BlaqOnyemauche (DeFi Gateway 🥷) · 09-25 11:24 · ♥98 ↻1 💬65 You know that pain when you’ve spent weeks farming an airdrop, doing every task they throw at you, only to check one morning and see:
“TGE delayed” again?
At that point, you just stare at your screen and laugh 😂
That kind of experience can humble anybody.
That’s why ActionFi, the bounty layer of @ActionModelAI, stands out to me.
Instead of farming blindly and hoping some mystery snapshot remembers your wallet, ActionFi puts actual bounties in front of you.
Pick a task, complete it, and the Action Model extension verifies the work.
Depending on the campaign, you can earn $LAM Points, partner tokens or stablecoin rewards.
One side feels like farming hope.
The other gives you something clear to work towards.
Same Web3 hustle, fewer guessing games.
Check out ActionFi through the link in the comments 👇 https://x.com/BlaqOnyemauche/status/2103445659395240335
## @HouseofChimera (House of Chimera) · 09-25 13:04 · ♥70 ↻26 💬18 Asia, we’re coming.
🔹 Seoul (@kbwofficial): sept 28-oct 3 🔸 Singapore (@token2049 week): oct 3-8
We’re booking research chats + partner meetings.
If you’re building in crypto/infra/defi/ai then let’s talk.
DM/email us or reply “Seoul” or “SG” and we’ll dm timeslots. https://t.co/0orCEQVO2B https://x.com/HouseofChimera/status/2103470582595739777
## @Coinmaster100x (Master) · 09-25 14:03 · ♥88 ↻4 💬39 Guys, for a long time, using BTC in DeFi usually meant moving it somewhere else
wrap it bridge it give up native BTC exposure
that is what makes @ZestProtocol interesting to me
its Bitcoin Collateral Vault lets you lock native BTC in a self custodial vault on Bitcoin L1 and borrow USDC on Ethereum
the basic flow is simple
- connect your wallets - deposit BTC - wait for confirmations - borrow USDC
your BTC stays on Bitcoin
no wrapped BTC no bridge no pooled collateral
you can also make partial withdrawals and handle liquidations without everything becoming an all or nothing position
the bigger idea is simple
BTC can stay native while its value becomes usable across DeFi
Bitcoin sitting idle → Bitcoin backed liquidity
that is the direction i am watching with Zest. https://x.com/Coinmaster100x/status/2103485627031544231
## @ChemistDeFi (Chemist 🧪) · 09-25 14:53 · ♥71 ↻9 💬41 Aave is starting to look less like just a DeFi lending protocol and more like a crypto-native credit institution.
Yesterday, Aave Labs proposed “Aave Institutional.”
The DAO would authorize two funding routes:
→ 25M GHO through a new facilitator → up to $25M USDC/USDT borrowed against DAO balance-sheet assets
That capital would fund overcollateralized loans to institutions posting BTC or ETH with qualified custodians, typically at 60–75% LTV.
The economics are interesting.
Borrower rate: 6–8% Funding cost: ~4.5% Net margin to the DAO: 1.5–3.5%
At $50M fully deployed, that’s roughly $750K–$1.75M in annualized net interest.
But I think the bigger shift is where the yield comes from.
It isn’t another DeFi loop recycling the same onchain leverage and incentives.
GHO becomes funding capital for institutional credit outside DeFi.
There is a tradeoff.
The proposed 25M GHO capacity is ~42% of the $59.9M currently available in GHO Stability Module redemption inventory, so peg liquidity has to be managed carefully. Every funding authorization would require GHO Steward approval.
And this is still an ARFC proposal, not something already live.
But if governance approves it, Aave starts exporting DeFi liquidity into offchain credit markets.
That’s a much bigger business than simply waiting for more people to borrow stablecoins onchain. https://x.com/ChemistDeFi/status/2103498188309078398
## @_abgweb3_ (ABG) · 09-25 14:19 · ♥95 ↻1 💬23 Most of Web3 is built around transparency.
That works until the data is something you actually need to keep private.
Financial history, identity, trading activity, reputation, credit data these shouldn’t have to become public just because an application needs to verify them.
That’s why @primus_labs stands out.
zkTLS makes offchain data verifiable without exposing the full underlying information.
FHE goes further by allowing computation while the data stays encrypted.
The result is a much more practical privacy layer for: private DeFi, onchain credit, AI agents, payments and institutional finance.
The next stage of Web3 won’t be about putting everything onchain.
It’ll be about putting only what needs to be proven onchain. https://x.com/_abgweb3_/status/2103489610101711172
## @HenryDave_HD (MagicLegs 🪖) · 09-25 12:23 · ♥79 ↻6 💬22 day 2/30 — what is actually being exchanged?
when you say:
“i want to swap my USDC on Ethereum for USDT on TON.”
what exactly is being exchanged?
this sounds like a simple question.
but once you start looking deeper into cross-chain DeFi, the answer gets pretty interesting.
because a cross-chain swap isn't necessarily about taking the exact token you have on one chain and somehow transporting it to another.
that's where i think the terminology can get confusing.
let's break it down.
✅1. moving the same asset
imagine you have USDC on Ethereum and want USDC on another network.
at a high level, the goal is:
USDC on Chain A → USDC on Chain B
but that doesn't automatically mean the original USDC is physically “moving” from one blockchain to another.
blockchains are separate environments.
the important question becomes:
what representation of the asset will you receive on the destination chain?
✅2. exchanging one asset for another
now let's change the example.
you have:
USDC on Ethereum
but you want:
USDT on TON
that's not simply moving USDC.
you're exchanging one asset for another across two different networks.
so the actual objective becomes:
asset A on Chain A → asset B on Chain B
and this distinction matters.
because the infrastructure doesn't necessarily need to transport the original token.
it needs to coordinate the exchange between what you have and what you want.
that's a very different way of thinking about cross-chain swaps.
✅3. receiving a wrapped representation
this is another important distinction.
some cross-chain systems use representations of assets on another network.
you might deposit or lock an asset on one chain and receive a corresponding representation elsewhere.
the destination asset may represent exposure to the original asset rather than being the native version of that asset.
that's why terms like:
• wrapped assets • bridged assets • native assets
matter when you're evaluating how a cross-chain system actually works.
because “i received USDC” doesn't tell the entire story. you also want to know:
- which USDC?
- on which chain?
- and how did it get there?
✅4. receiving the native destination asset
this is where cross-chain swaps become particularly interesting to me.
instead of thinking:
“how do i move this token across the bridge?”
you can think:
“i have this asset here. i want that asset there.”
the objective is no longer necessarily to transport the original token.
it's to complete an exchange between assets on different networks.
for example:
USDC on Ethereum → native destination asset on TON
the source asset stays relevant to the transaction on Ethereum.
the destination asset is what ultimately matters on TON.
and the infrastructure coordinates the execution between those two sides.
that's a subtle difference, but it changes how i think about cross-chain DeFi.
because the user's real intention usually isn't:
“please transport this exact token through some complicated infrastructure.”
it's:
“i have value here. i want to use a different asset over there.”
and that's why defining the source asset and destination asset clearly is so important.
before thinking about bridges, routes, resolvers, RFQs or execution,
start with two simple questions:
☑️what am i giving up?
and
☑️what exactly do i want to receive?
once those are clear, the rest of the transaction starts making much more sense.
and honestly, i think this is one of the most useful mental models for understanding cross-chain swaps.
don't just ask:
“how do i move this token?”
ask:
“what am i exchanging, and what do i want to end up with?”
that shift takes you from thinking about cross-chain as transportation…
to thinking about it as execution.
and tomorrow, that leads to an even more important question:
what's the difference between a route and an execution layer?
that's DAY 3.
stick around.
#STONfi #DeFi #TON > 引用 @HenryDave_HD: day 1/30 — cross-chain is not just about moving tokens
the more i study cross-chain, the more i realize that moving tokens is only the surface-level problem.
at first, cross-chain can sound pretty simple:
- you have an asset on chain A.
- you want that asset, or another asset, on chain B.
so you find a route, approve a transaction, and swap.
done.
but underneath that simple user action is a much more complicated coordination problem.
because the moment you leave one blockchain and interact with another, you're dealing with environments that were never designed to operate as one system.
different chains have different:
→ execution environments → transaction speeds → liquidity conditions → fee structures → confirmation times → settlement mechanisms → wallet experiences → user expectations
and somehow, all of these differences have to come together into one experience that feels simple to the person clicking “swap.”
that's where i think the real challenge begins.
the difficult part isn't simply getting value from one chain to another.
it's coordinating the entire experience without forcing the user to understand every moving part underneath it.
think about a simple cross-chain swap.
a user might only see:
“send USDC here → receive TON there.”
but underneath that, infrastructure has to deal with things like:
• where is the destination liquidity coming from?
• who is providing it?
• how is the exchange rate determined?
• what happens if one side settles before the other?
• what happens if something fails?
• how long should the transaction remain valid?
• how does the system make sure the user receives the expected asset?
and perhaps most importantly:
what happens when the two networks behave differently?
that's why i’ve started looking at cross-chain less as a “token movement” problem and more as an execution coordination problem.
and this distinction matters.
because if cross-chain infrastructure only focuses on moving assets, it can still leave users dealing with fragmented liquidity, confusing routes, unpredictable execution, unnecessary steps and too much technical complexity.
the better question becomes:
how do you make different blockchain environments work together without making the user carry all that complexity?
that's one reason the mechanics behind systems like Omniston are interesting to me.
the user doesn't need to manually understand every resolver, quote, condition or settlement mechanism involved in the execution.
ideally, the infrastructure handles those moving pieces in the background.
and that's a bigger theme i want to explore throughout Part 2.
because after spending 30 days learning the fundamentals of cross-chain swaps, i don't think the conversation should stop at:
“how does this work?”
i think the more interesting questions are:
how reliable is the execution?
how efficient is the liquidity?
what incentives make the system work?
what risks are involved?
and what would it take for cross-chain to actually feel seamless?
that's where i'm taking this second series.
less focus on simply explaining what cross-chain is.
more focus on understanding what makes cross-chain execution actually work.
because moving value between chains is only the beginning.
the real challenge is making the entire journey reliable.
and honestly, that's where things get really interesting.
tomorrow, i'll break down another question that sounds simple but changes the way you look at cross-chain swaps:
day 2 — what is actually being exchanged?
see you tomorrow.
#STONfi #DeFi #TON https://x.com/HenryDave_HD/status/2103460423412429077