Curve DAO Token价格

说一下对Yield Basis的看法 先说结论 产品：又是一个螺丝壳里搞精装修的Defi项目，是Michael的话就不意外了 打新：赌一下，浇给Kraken韭菜 产品文档写得挺玄乎，看起来接近了DeFi的一个永恒难题——无常损失。具体做法是，使用BTC做抵押物，借贷出CrvUSD并在Curve组池，LP做抵押物的情况下可以实现1：1配资。随着BTC价格的变动，这个资产组合（$1crvUSD资产+$1CrvUSD负债+$1BTC等值资产）会不断进行调仓，始终保持资产组合的比例。 说得更直接一点，就是BTC少了就买回来，BTC多了就卖出去点，目前市面上有一些AMM对冲采用的也是这个方式。通常来说AMM对冲是亏钱的，但在VirtualPool和Rebalancing‑AMM的机制下，这种对冲交易可以产生正收益，也就实现了BTC本位的无常损失规避。 所以Yield basis解决无常损失的说法倒也没错，但准确地说，只是在特定场景下解决了无常损失，相当于解一个线性方程，解出了一个通解，而不是特解。Yield Basis正收益的来源是价格变动情况下，Curve AMM池子的套利空间。 这种【特解】不仅局限于池子和币种，还有更多外部限制。众所周知，物质是守恒的，Yield Basis产生了正收益，那谁亏钱了？显然是被套利者亏钱了，也就是AMM池子中非Yield Basis的那一部分LP。举个更形象一点的例子，存在一群镰刀和一群韭菜，镰刀通过割韭菜来赚钱，那如果镰刀太多了，韭菜就不够割了，所以Yield Basis 达到理想效果的前提是，Yield Basis 占据整个Curve Pool的比例还不能太高。 接下来我们会发现一件很有意思的事情，目前Yield Basis的TVL是3m，每个池子1.02m，而恰好三个BTC对应的CrvUSD池，TVL都是2.04m。也就是Yield Basis占到50% TVL，那么问题来了，如果池子放开以后，剩下的LP数量不变，Yield Basis还能在保持9%+ APY的情况下增长么？

$CRV – 再次领先，三周前达到顶峰，而其他币种最近才开始追赶。 考虑到最近的价格行动，我认为再次进入高价区是一个不错的做空机会。 我会在 $0.60 – $0.65 区域寻找摆动多头机会。 如果我们能突破并翻转红色框，我会重新评估——在那之前，请下调。 #CRV #CRVUSDT

Two OGs, two new DeFi primitives @CurveFinance's founder @newmichwill is shipping @yieldbasis (a no-IL BTC AMM liquidity platform); while @yearnfi’s founder and god of DeFi @AndreCronjeTech is building @flyingtulip_ (unified AMM+CLOB exchange). Different bets on the same problem - make on-chain liquidity actually work: • Yield Basis ($YB): A Curve-native AMM that removes impermanent loss (IL) for BTC LPs by holding constant 2x leverage in a BTC-crvUSD (LP tracks BTC 1:1 while earning fees). You mint ybBTC (yield-bearing BTC) • Flying Tulip ($FT): A unified on-chain exchange (spot + lending + perps + options + structured yield) built on a volatility-aware hybrid AMM + CLOB, slippage-aware lending, and ftUSD (a delta-neutral USD-equivalent) as the incentive flywheel - - - - - Yield Basis • Classic AMMs make BTC LPs sell into strength (when price goes up) or buy into weakness (√p exposure), causing IL that often is more than the fees earned while LPing • Saving a longer post for Yield Basis, but essentially users deposit BTC into the platform → protocol borrows equal crvUSD and forms a 50/50 BTC-crvUSD Curve LP at 2x compounding leverage • A re-leveraging AMM + virtual pool keeps debt ≈ 50% of LP value; arbitrageurs get paid to keep leverage constant • This results in LP value moving linearly with BTC and earns trading fees • LPs hold ybBTC, a yield-bearing BTC receipt token that auto-compounds BTC-denominated trading fees • There is also the governance token $YB, that can be locked for veYB to vote (gauges, pool emissions) • Yield basis is basically for BTC holders that want to unlock productive BTC in a protocol that solves the IL problem and earn fees Flying Tulip • Legacy DEX UX and risk settings are static. FT tunes the AMM curve to volatility and the lending LTVs to real execution/slippage → goal is to bring CEX-level tooling on-chain • Their AMM adapts curvature to measured vol (EWMA) → i.e. flatter (near constant-sum) in calm regimes to compress slippage/IL, more product-like in high vol to avoid depletion • ftUSD is produced by tokenized delta-neutral LP positions and is used for da flywheel, incentives/liquidity programs across the exchange • There is the platform token $FT, where revenue could be potentially reserved for buybacks/ incentives/ liquidity programs • The DeFi super-app: one exchange for spot, lending, perps, options • Execution quality depends on accurate vol/impact signals and robust risk circuits during stress - - - - - Yield Basis wants to become the venue for BTC liquidity; while Flying Tulip aims to be the venue for everything trading-native on-chain. In the era of a Perp Dex meta, this comes in a timely manner for Flying Tulip to launch. Tbh, Flying Tulip could even route future BTC flow to YB-like pools if that produces best execution. If Yield Basis delivers, ybBTC becomes the “stETH-for-BTC” primitive: BTC exposure + LP trading fees, without IL. While Flying Tulip has the potential to ship its integrated stack, to allow users to get CEX-level tools; a “one exchange, all of DeFi” attempt. Remain cautiously optimistic for the 2 projects, while you do not want to fade the OGs and tier 1 founders, both are untested and the founders have other protocols to also take care of (Curve, Sonic).