Many people have experienced this awkward situation: holding promising assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but when they need liquidity for daily expenses or other investment opportunities, they are forced to sell. Even more heartbreaking is that after selling, the market turns around and rises, making the seller regret it more than anyone.



The root of the problem is that we are always forced into a binary choice—either hold onto the assets tightly or sell them completely. Is there a way to enjoy both?

The design concept of the USDf stablecoin is to break this deadlock. Users can lock in Bitcoin, Ethereum, stablecoins, or tokenized real-world assets (such as government bonds or gold) within the protocol, then mint the corresponding USDf for use, while retaining full ownership of the original assets.

The brilliance of this mechanism lies in its over-collateralization model. The value of the collateral assets always exceeds the amount of USDf generated, so market fluctuations cannot undermine the system's stability. More importantly—each USDf is backed by verifiable, real reserve assets. The entire process is transparent and on-chain, allowing users to check reserves anytime they want. This verifiability has been lacking in many stablecoin projects. Historically, most failed stablecoins fell because of lack of transparency.
BTC-0.2%
ETH0.11%
View Original
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 6
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
tx_or_didn't_happenvip
· 10h ago
This logic sounds pretty smooth, but I'm worried it might be the next Luna again. It's just lending and borrowing, nothing too mysterious. Transparent on-chain? Haven't we learned enough from past lessons? It's still prone to failure. It's interesting; finally, a project has thought of this pain point. Wait, how is over-collateralization calculated? Could it be just on paper data again? To be honest, it's still about trusting the protocol itself—that's the key.
View OriginalReply0
GasDevourervip
· 10h ago
Sounds great, but I still have some doubts; there are too many lessons from history.
View OriginalReply0
ForkInTheRoadvip
· 10h ago
This logic sounds good, but how is the collateralization ratio set? What if a black swan event occurs and you're directly liquidated?
View OriginalReply0
SatoshiLeftOnReadvip
· 10h ago
Finally, someone has really pointed out this pain point. The moment of cutting losses really makes me want to smash my phone. This idea is indeed good, but it depends on how the risk control on USDf is handled. Over-collateralization sounds great, but how does it work in practice? Why do I always feel that this is no different from a lending platform, just a different name. I need to see the data before trusting the transparency on the blockchain. There are many projects claiming this now. But to be honest, being able to cash out directly without selling really solves a big problem. Time to take a gamble.
View OriginalReply0
SadMoneyMeowvip
· 10h ago
Selling and then the price goes up is really incredible, always regret it afterward. This idea is actually pretty good; collateralizing to exchange for stablecoins is definitely more comfortable than cutting losses. Transparency is key, or else it could be the next Luna. It still depends on how the USDf risk control is handled. Over-collateralization sounds good, but the details are very important. Wait, isn't this just MakerDAO's old routine? Any innovation? People are like that—if they can't hold on, they sell; when they sell, the price goes up; cycle... it's heartbreaking. Collateralization doesn't mean no risk. If prices plummet, you still need to add more collateral. Don't be fooled.
View OriginalReply0
BrokenDAOvip
· 10h ago
I've heard the rhetoric of transparent on-chain data too many times before—MakerDAO, Luna, Celsius... Isn't each one claimed to be verifiable and transparent? And in the end? The key still comes down to the incentive mechanism. No matter how perfect the collateral model is, who can fix the hard flaw of human nature?
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)