Author: Ash Compiled by: TechFlow @newmichwill, founder of @CurveFinance, is launching @yieldbasis, a Bitcoin AMM liquidity platform with no impermanent loss. Meanwhile, @yearnfi founder and DeFi god @AndreCronjeTech is building @flyingtulip_, a unified AMM+CLOB exchange. Two different attempts to solve the same problem: how to make on-chain liquidity truly effective: Yield Basis ($YB): A Curve-native AMM that eliminates impermanent loss for BTC liquidity providers by maintaining a constant 2x leveraged BTC-crvUSD liquidity pool (LP value remains 1:1 with BTC while earning transaction fees). Users can mint ybBTC (yield-generating BTC). Flying Tulip ($FT): An on-chain unified exchange (including spot, lending, perpetual contracts, options, and structured returns), based on a volatility-aware hybrid AMM+CLOB architecture, combined with a slippage-aware lending mechanism, and ftUSD (a delta-neutral USD equivalent) as the core incentive. Yield Basis Traditional AMMs allow BTC liquidity providers to sell when prices rise or buy when prices fall (√p exposure, DeepChao Note: market risk exposure measured in square roots of prices), resulting in impermanent losses that often exceed the fees earned from providing liquidity. The specific mechanism of Yield Basis will be explained in detail later, but the core is: users deposit BTC into the platform, and the protocol borrows an equal amount of crvUSD, forming a 50/50 BTC-crvUSD Curve liquidity pool, which operates with 2x compound leverage. A re-leveraged AMM and virtual pool maintains a debt approximately equal to 50% of the liquidity pool value; arbitrageurs profit by maintaining leverage constant. This allows the value of the liquidity pool to change linearly with BTC while earning transaction fees. Liquidity providers hold ybBTC, a yield-generating BTC receipt token that automatically compounds BTC-denominated transaction fees. The platform also provides governance tokens $YB, which can be locked as veYB and used for voting (for example, selecting liquidity pool reward distribution). Yield Basis is primarily aimed at BTC holders who want to unlock productive BTC in a protocol that solves the impermanent loss problem and earn fees. Flying Tulip Traditional decentralized exchanges (DEXs) often have static user experiences and risk profiles. Flying Tulip aims to bring centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools to the blockchain by adjusting AMM curves based on volatility and adjusting loan-to-value (LTV) ratios based on actual execution/slippage. Its AMM adjusts the curvature based on the measured volatility (EWMA) - that is, it tends to be flat (close to the constant sum) in the case of small volatility to compress slippage and impermanent loss; it has more multiplicative characteristics in the case of large volatility to avoid liquidity depletion. ftUSD tokenized delta-neutral liquidity pool positions are generated and used for incentive mechanisms and liquidity programs. The platform token $FT may be used for revenue buybacks, incentives, and liquidity programs. Flying Tulip is a DeFi super app: an exchange that supports spot trading, lending, perpetual contracts, and options. Execution quality relies on accurate volatility/impact signals and robust risk control in stressed environments. Outlook of the two projects Yield Basis aims to become a platform for BTC liquidity, while Flying Tulip aims to become a platform for all on-chain native trading. In an era dominated by perpetual contract decentralized exchanges (Perp DEXs), Flying Tulip's launch seems opportune. Frankly, if it can achieve best execution, Flying Tulip could even divert future BTC traffic to a pool similar to YB. If Yield Basis succeeds, ybBTC could become Bitcoin's "stETH" primitive: BTC exposure + liquidity provider (LP) trading fees, without impermanent loss. Flying Tulip has the potential to launch its integrated stack, providing users with centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools, attempting to become a "one-stop shop for all DeFi." While cautiously optimistic about both projects, it's important to note that these projects, led by OG founders and top-tier teams, remain untested, and their founders must also consider the development of other protocols, such as Curve and Sonic. The above image was compiled by TechFlow as follows: Author: Ash Compiled by: TechFlow @newmichwill, founder of @CurveFinance, is launching @yieldbasis, a Bitcoin AMM liquidity platform with no impermanent loss. Meanwhile, @yearnfi founder and DeFi god @AndreCronjeTech is building @flyingtulip_, a unified AMM+CLOB exchange. Two different attempts to solve the same problem: how to make on-chain liquidity truly effective: Yield Basis ($YB): A Curve-native AMM that eliminates impermanent loss for BTC liquidity providers by maintaining a constant 2x leveraged BTC-crvUSD liquidity pool (LP value remains 1:1 with BTC while earning transaction fees). Users can mint ybBTC (yield-generating BTC). Flying Tulip ($FT): An on-chain unified exchange (including spot, lending, perpetual contracts, options, and structured returns), based on a volatility-aware hybrid AMM+CLOB architecture, combined with a slippage-aware lending mechanism, and ftUSD (a delta-neutral USD equivalent) as the core incentive. Yield Basis Traditional AMMs allow BTC liquidity providers to sell when prices rise or buy when prices fall (√p exposure, DeepChao Note: market risk exposure measured in square roots of prices), resulting in impermanent losses that often exceed the fees earned from providing liquidity. The specific mechanism of Yield Basis will be explained in detail later, but the core is: users deposit BTC into the platform, and the protocol borrows an equal amount of crvUSD, forming a 50/50 BTC-crvUSD Curve liquidity pool, which operates with 2x compound leverage. A re-leveraged AMM and virtual pool maintains a debt approximately equal to 50% of the liquidity pool value; arbitrageurs profit by maintaining leverage constant. This allows the value of the liquidity pool to change linearly with BTC while earning transaction fees. Liquidity providers hold ybBTC, a yield-generating BTC receipt token that automatically compounds BTC-denominated transaction fees. The platform also provides governance tokens $YB, which can be locked as veYB and used for voting (for example, selecting liquidity pool reward distribution). Yield Basis is primarily aimed at BTC holders who want to unlock productive BTC in a protocol that solves the impermanent loss problem and earn fees. Flying Tulip Traditional decentralized exchanges (DEXs) often have static user experiences and risk profiles. Flying Tulip aims to bring centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools to the blockchain by adjusting AMM curves based on volatility and adjusting loan-to-value (LTV) ratios based on actual execution/slippage. Its AMM adjusts the curvature based on the measured volatility (EWMA) - that is, it tends to be flat (close to the constant sum) in the case of small volatility to compress slippage and impermanent loss; it has more multiplicative characteristics in the case of large volatility to avoid liquidity depletion. ftUSD tokenized delta-neutral liquidity pool positions are generated and used for incentive mechanisms and liquidity programs. The platform token $FT may be used for revenue buybacks, incentives, and liquidity programs. Flying Tulip is a DeFi super app: an exchange that supports spot trading, lending, perpetual contracts, and options. Execution quality relies on accurate volatility/impact signals and robust risk control in stressed environments. Outlook of the two projects Yield Basis aims to become a platform for BTC liquidity, while Flying Tulip aims to become a platform for all on-chain native trading. In an era dominated by perpetual contract decentralized exchanges (Perp DEXs), Flying Tulip's launch seems opportune. Frankly, if it can achieve best execution, Flying Tulip could even divert future BTC traffic to a pool similar to YB. If Yield Basis succeeds, ybBTC could become Bitcoin's "stETH" primitive: BTC exposure + liquidity provider (LP) trading fees, without impermanent loss. Flying Tulip has the potential to launch its integrated stack, providing users with centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools, attempting to become a "one-stop shop for all DeFi." While cautiously optimistic about both projects, it's important to note that these projects, led by OG founders and top-tier teams, remain untested, and their founders must also consider the development of other protocols, such as Curve and Sonic. The above image was compiled by TechFlow as follows:
New projects from DeFi veterans: Curve founder creates BTC pool, AC plans to build a full-fledged exchange
Author: Ash
Compiled by: TechFlow
@newmichwill, founder of @CurveFinance, is launching @yieldbasis, a Bitcoin AMM liquidity platform with no impermanent loss.
Meanwhile, @yearnfi founder and DeFi god @AndreCronjeTech is building @flyingtulip_, a unified AMM+CLOB exchange.
Two different attempts to solve the same problem: how to make on-chain liquidity truly effective:
- Yield Basis ($YB): A Curve-native AMM that eliminates impermanent loss for BTC liquidity providers by maintaining a constant 2x leveraged BTC-crvUSD liquidity pool (LP value remains 1:1 with BTC while earning transaction fees). Users can mint ybBTC (yield-generating BTC).
- Flying Tulip ($FT): An on-chain unified exchange (including spot, lending, perpetual contracts, options, and structured returns), based on a volatility-aware hybrid AMM+CLOB architecture, combined with a slippage-aware lending mechanism, and ftUSD (a delta-neutral USD equivalent) as the core incentive.
Yield Basis
- Traditional AMMs allow BTC liquidity providers to sell when prices rise or buy when prices fall (√p exposure, DeepChao Note: market risk exposure measured in square roots of prices), resulting in impermanent losses that often exceed the fees earned from providing liquidity.
- The specific mechanism of Yield Basis will be explained in detail later, but the core is: users deposit BTC into the platform, and the protocol borrows an equal amount of crvUSD, forming a 50/50 BTC-crvUSD Curve liquidity pool, which operates with 2x compound leverage.
- A re-leveraged AMM and virtual pool maintains a debt approximately equal to 50% of the liquidity pool value; arbitrageurs profit by maintaining leverage constant.
- This allows the value of the liquidity pool to change linearly with BTC while earning transaction fees.
- Liquidity providers hold ybBTC, a yield-generating BTC receipt token that automatically compounds BTC-denominated transaction fees.
- The platform also provides governance tokens $YB, which can be locked as veYB and used for voting (for example, selecting liquidity pool reward distribution).
- Yield Basis is primarily aimed at BTC holders who want to unlock productive BTC in a protocol that solves the impermanent loss problem and earn fees.
Flying Tulip
- Traditional decentralized exchanges (DEXs) often have static user experiences and risk profiles. Flying Tulip aims to bring centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools to the blockchain by adjusting AMM curves based on volatility and adjusting loan-to-value (LTV) ratios based on actual execution/slippage.
- Its AMM adjusts the curvature based on the measured volatility (EWMA) - that is, it tends to be flat (close to the constant sum) in the case of small volatility to compress slippage and impermanent loss; it has more multiplicative characteristics in the case of large volatility to avoid liquidity depletion.
- ftUSD tokenized delta-neutral liquidity pool positions are generated and used for incentive mechanisms and liquidity programs.
- The platform token $FT may be used for revenue buybacks, incentives, and liquidity programs.
- Flying Tulip is a DeFi super app: an exchange that supports spot trading, lending, perpetual contracts, and options.
- Execution quality relies on accurate volatility/impact signals and robust risk control in stressed environments.
Outlook of the two projects
Yield Basis aims to become a platform for BTC liquidity, while Flying Tulip aims to become a platform for all on-chain native trading. In an era dominated by perpetual contract decentralized exchanges (Perp DEXs), Flying Tulip's launch seems opportune. Frankly, if it can achieve best execution, Flying Tulip could even divert future BTC traffic to a pool similar to YB. If Yield Basis succeeds, ybBTC could become Bitcoin's "stETH" primitive: BTC exposure + liquidity provider (LP) trading fees, without impermanent loss. Flying Tulip has the potential to launch its integrated stack, providing users with centralized exchange (CEX)-level tools, attempting to become a "one-stop shop for all DeFi." While cautiously optimistic about both projects, it's important to note that these projects, led by OG founders and top-tier teams, remain untested, and their founders must also consider the development of other protocols, such as Curve and Sonic.
The above image was compiled by TechFlow as follows:
Market Opportunity
DeFi Price(DEFI)
$0.000564
$0.000564$0.000564
USD
DeFi (DEFI) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
You May Also Like
Two new wallets withdrew 26,241 ZEC from Binance within 12 hours, worth $13.5 million.
PANews reported on December 28 that, according to Lookonchain monitoring, two newly created wallets withdrew 26,241 ZEC (US$13.5 million) from Binance in the past
Share
PANews2025/12/28 09:13
Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security
BitcoinWorld Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security Ever wondered why withdrawing your staked Ethereum (ETH) isn’t an instant process? It’s a question that often sparks debate within the crypto community. Ethereum founder Vitalik Buterin recently stepped forward to defend the network’s approximately 45-day ETH unstaking period, asserting its crucial role in safeguarding the network’s integrity. This lengthy waiting time, while sometimes seen as an inconvenience, is a deliberate design choice with profound implications for security. Why is the ETH Unstaking Period a Vital Security Measure? Vitalik Buterin’s defense comes amidst comparisons to other networks, like Solana, which boast significantly shorter unstaking times. He drew a compelling parallel to military operations, explaining that an army cannot function effectively if its soldiers can simply abandon their posts at a moment’s notice. Similarly, a blockchain network requires a stable and committed validator set to maintain its security. The current ETH unstaking period isn’t merely an arbitrary delay. It acts as a critical buffer, providing the network with sufficient time to detect and respond to potential malicious activities. If validators could instantly exit, it would open doors for sophisticated attacks, jeopardizing the entire system. Currently, Ethereum boasts over one million active validators, collectively staking approximately 35.6 million ETH, representing about 30% of the total supply. This massive commitment underpins the network’s robust security model, and the unstaking period helps preserve this stability. Network Security: Ethereum’s Paramount Concern A shorter ETH unstaking period might seem appealing for liquidity, but it introduces significant risks. Imagine a scenario where a large number of validators, potentially colluding, could quickly withdraw their stake after committing a malicious act. Without a substantial delay, the network would have limited time to penalize them or mitigate the damage. This “exit queue” mechanism is designed to prevent sudden validator exodus, which could lead to: Reduced decentralization: A rapid drop in active validators could concentrate power among fewer participants. Increased vulnerability to attacks: A smaller, less stable validator set is easier to compromise. Network instability: Frequent and unpredictable changes in validator numbers can lead to performance issues and consensus failures. Therefore, the extended period is not a bug; it’s a feature. It’s a calculated trade-off between immediate liquidity for stakers and the foundational security of the entire Ethereum ecosystem. Ethereum vs. Solana: Different Approaches to Unstaking When discussing the ETH unstaking period, many point to networks like Solana, which offers a much quicker two-day unstaking process. While this might seem like an advantage for stakers seeking rapid access to their funds, it reflects fundamental differences in network architecture and security philosophies. Solana’s design prioritizes speed and immediate liquidity, often relying on different consensus mechanisms and validator economics to manage security risks. Ethereum, on the other hand, with its proof-of-stake evolution from proof-of-work, has adopted a more cautious approach to ensure its transition and long-term stability are uncompromised. Each network makes design choices based on its unique goals and threat models. Ethereum’s substantial value and its role as a foundational layer for countless dApps necessitate an extremely robust security posture, making the current unstaking duration a deliberate and necessary component. What Does the ETH Unstaking Period Mean for Stakers? For individuals and institutions staking ETH, understanding the ETH unstaking period is crucial for managing expectations and investment strategies. It means that while staking offers attractive rewards, it also comes with a commitment to the network’s long-term health. Here are key considerations for stakers: Liquidity Planning: Stakers should view their staked ETH as a longer-term commitment, not immediately liquid capital. Risk Management: The delay inherently reduces the ability to react quickly to market volatility with staked assets. Network Contribution: By participating, stakers contribute directly to the security and decentralization of Ethereum, reinforcing its value proposition. While the current waiting period may not be “optimal” in every sense, as Buterin acknowledged, simply shortening it without addressing the underlying security implications would be a dangerous gamble for the network’s reliability. In conclusion, Vitalik Buterin’s defense of the lengthy ETH unstaking period underscores a fundamental principle: network security cannot be compromised for the sake of convenience. It is a vital mechanism that protects Ethereum’s integrity, ensuring its stability and trustworthiness as a leading blockchain platform. This deliberate design choice, while requiring patience from stakers, ultimately fortifies the entire ecosystem against potential threats, paving the way for a more secure and reliable decentralized future. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Q1: What is the main reason for Ethereum’s long unstaking period? A1: The primary reason is network security. A lengthy ETH unstaking period prevents malicious actors from quickly withdrawing their stake after an attack, giving the network time to detect and penalize them, thus maintaining stability and integrity. Q2: How long is the current ETH unstaking period? A2: The current ETH unstaking period is approximately 45 days. This duration can fluctuate based on network conditions and the number of validators in the exit queue. Q3: How does Ethereum’s unstaking period compare to other blockchains? A3: Ethereum’s unstaking period is notably longer than some other networks, such as Solana, which has a two-day period. This difference reflects varying network architectures and security priorities. Q4: Does the unstaking period affect ETH stakers? A4: Yes, it means stakers need to plan their liquidity carefully, as their staked ETH is not immediately accessible. It encourages a longer-term commitment to the network, aligning staker interests with Ethereum’s stability. Q5: Could the ETH unstaking period be shortened in the future? A5: While Vitalik Buterin acknowledged the current period might not be “optimal,” any significant shortening would likely require extensive research and network upgrades to ensure security isn’t compromised. For now, the focus remains on maintaining robust network defenses. Found this article insightful? Share it with your friends and fellow crypto enthusiasts on social media to spread awareness about the critical role of the ETH unstaking period in Ethereum’s security! To learn more about the latest Ethereum trends, explore our article on key developments shaping Ethereum’s institutional adoption. This post Crucial ETH Unstaking Period: Vitalik Buterin’s Unwavering Defense for Network Security first appeared on BitcoinWorld.
Share
Coinstats2025/09/18 15:30
Musk expressed concern about the soaring price of silver.
PANews reported on December 28th that Tesla CEO Elon Musk expressed concern about rising silver prices. He posted on the social media platform "X," stating, "This
Share
PANews2025/12/28 09:24