Panel | Evaluating Systemic Risks in Interconnected Stablecoin Systems

Before we dive into the topic, obviously you have the title in front of you. We are going to talk about a really exciting topic of systemic risks that apparently after years of stable coin existing, we haven't learned anything yet. So before we dive into this topic, guys, could you please introduce each other, your role, and how long you've been into in the ecosystem, and what's uh your relationship with stable coins?

I can jump in first. I'm engineer, that's my photo, uh, solutions architect at Urine, a former security auditor in the space. I guess now it's been maybe four or five years I've been in the space.

Hey, I'm Siril. I'm contributor to Alladin Dao, which is the DA behind FX protocol. And FX uh lets you borrow against your ETH and BTC by just paying a onetime fee and being protected from liquidations. So basically you can borrow and never repay your debt because it doesn't cost you any buck per year and that lets us meet and create a decentralized stable coin called FXUSD.

Uh hi guys, I'm uh Voytech the CEO and co-founder of accountable. Uh we mainly work with financial verification. So we let uh institutions to prove what they are doing offchain and onchain. and we recently also launched our own vault product.

Hi everybody, I'm Michael from Liquity. I'm the CEO of the company in the space since 2017. Liquidity as a protocol issues probably the most decentralized stable coin, meaning that it gives users the strongest guarantees that nobody's taking away your stable coin, meaning freezing, meaning minting, meaning no exposure to RWA or threat. That's why I often also call it the Ethereum dollar. Um, yeah, and that's what you can do in liquidity.

Borrow in bold against Ether or holding and earning with it. Thank you very much guys. Um last week I was in Paris during another uh conference where I had to talk about stable coins and I had to the the name of the panel was everything you know about stable everything you have to know about stable coins. The funny thing is I've been part of the first edition of stable summit and apparently after four years of this existing we still don't know everything about stable coins but essentially I had to talk to people that are not familiar with the crypto ecosystem. So uh I have basically to explain the various roles that the stable coins have today in the in crypto.

So we can talk about collateral for trading for example. We can talk about stable coins that are supposed to be stable um for the ecosystem where you can actually swap your shitcoins into something that respect to the US dollar. Uh then you have the savings aspect and essentially the one that emerged in 2024 2025 it's farming uh new protocols new chains uh by depositing your stable coins in it and we've seen new stable coins pop up essentially in the past few years uh almost every week when you have a new entity a new institution a new protocol announcing a new stable coin and essentially what we are seeing is that the reserves of the stable coins don't seem to evolve this much. Most of the stable coins today that are decentralized, they are backed by USDC. So, circles uh stable coin and the other more decentralized stable coins are backed by the other stable coins that are backed by USDC.

And so, we find ourselves in a world where something that is supposed to be stable actually can spin up and go to zero pretty quick. And we've seen quite a few examples lately where you can talk about Elixir DUSD. We can talk about USDX XUSD. Uh we can talk about the USR stable coin that happened last week. Um and so my question is uh we have more and more stable coins and they are more and more interconnected with each other.

uh how do we ensure that the backing of the stable coins, the reserves that they have are actually safe and they are actually kept in the right place and that these stable coins will not affect the other stable coins that are currently in the market. I think we can start with accountable because it's what you guys do uh and then we can maybe go to other speakers uh to understand how you tackle the uh the reserves behind your stable coins as well.

Yes. So you said it in the right way, not so stable stable coins, right? Like you're basically packaging uh usually a hedge fund activity and you call it something uh very stable. So I treat it a little bit like a like a meme. Um and indeed like people are basically pack packaging like various strategies behind a word called token.

Um there is nothing usually onchain about it. Just because you mint something onchain that doesn't mean that doesn't mean that the strategy it's onchain. Usually it's very much offchain and um you know like people don't learn. Um there is a sign of relief and and a lot of protocols are adopting a system like uh we are doing. Um but effectively the the collateral is usually a black box right like it can sit in in many many different places and an average user and will never have full visibility into what's going on there.

We in fact and our system which reli relies on um zk proofs and then basically um installing our software in the in the local infrastructure of these companies um on a separated machine. We are building the direct integrations with all of those venues uh which can be exchanges, banks, custodians, brokerage accounts of course u um onchain as well. But in reality like everything moves at the at the speed of light and we are never claiming that just because a user is using accountable then it means that their yieldbearing stable coin is safe. We only try to show the reality what's behind it. what you're saying is for legal purposes in case something happens.

No, no, because like I think we are not making an opinion about something. We are just trying to show what's behind. Uh exactly. We are showing in a transparent way where you have the proofs that this data is real came directly from the source and that it wasn't tampered with anything. That's it.

Period. We don't say that itina it's a good deal or a bad deal. Actually, there should be credit rating agencies which there are slowly coming to the market. you have credoras of the world and so on that should be using this data verifiable data to make the opinion right because that was the problem in the past with the previous credora crew um I was like the story is I was um running pools on Maple Finance in 2021 2022 when it was based basically um unsecured lending to market makers and everybody was relying on the same piece of paper from Alamida trust me bro this is a spreadsheet from an Excel assets 1.5 billion liabilities 1 billion and yeah like that's basically the information that you receive on a monthly basis and then a credit rating agency comes in and based on this information says that something is safe or not like that's right like no offense so credora right now it's doing it the right way are basically rating vaults uh doing many different things with like bluechip assets but if you want to rate something like itina you basically should take the data from some party like ours, right?

And then plug it to your system and you can have live verifiable credit ratings that update in real time based on all of these metrics. But that's why we don't touch that because we don't want to get paid by our clients to tell them you're an amazing counterparty. I think that's a conflict of interest in general.

It's it's a very good question you asked because it puts forwards the fact that all stable stable coins are not equal. There are very many different designs and the very fact that your service is needed for most trusted trusted stable coins u uh points to the fact that there are alternatives that don't require trust and this is the choice we made with FX the choice you guys made at at liquidity is to only use onchain assets as collateral and why it actually makes sense it's because blockchain make that possible. This is the only infrastructure you can use to make it possible and to abstract trust from financial products and we just embrace that to build a new primitive which doesn't need to to trust. You don't even need uh any third party to testify for for the reserves because they are here and you can check them 100% of the time uh on chain. So basically on FXUs is backed by rap steak and rap bitcoin and that's it.

You don't you don't there's no other there's no counterparty risk um you can just check it anytime and everything is public on blockchain. But one question, so don't you think that in general like the size of the offchain opportunities is like by far magnitudes bigger than the onchain part, right? Like so if you want to use T bills from Black Rockck or whatever like you need to trust the counterparty and they are bringing it onchain. So the size of the opportunity onchain and what you can do there, right? Like you can go to plenty of spots and use Ethereum as collateral and so on and so on.

But like we want a huge adoption, right? And the offchain world, it's unfortunately or fortunately like way bigger. So we need to be able to adapt also to that, right? And add this collateral to the mix. Yeah, I'm I'm not against bringing reward assets on chain, but what I care about is to make sure that there's always a choice for uh trustless alternatives and actually I believe there's enough like trustless solutions can scale enough to meet the the demand and moreover the more demand there is for trustless alternatives, the more uh demand there is for the packing.

So it's actually good for our bags which are backing the trustless stable coins. So it's also helps scaling the whole ecosystem by uh bringing demand to towards trustless solutions.

And I would look at it from the users perspective what do they get and not kind of from the market perspective. And you talked about these different stable coin types and that and I think um what we said is that DeFi stable coin is a unique product in its own and uh what it gives the user is on the one hand no threat risk no counterparty risk so for the diversification of your treasury that could be interesting. I don't know how many of you know that with USDC you still have a counterparty risk of circle um which you for example don't have with Pexel PEXO or PayPal USD so you have you have no transfire risk you get more control than with a with another stable coin because you as a user you can mint and redeem directly without KYC without being an institution any time that's for example the case for Bold our stable coin So you get additional features with this stable coin and the third part is more transparency real time 247. Um, so this gives this is just a unique product that the financial system can't produce that only can live on Ethereum and it doesn't need to be as big as traditional stable coins but just having the option to opt out or to hold such stable coins and not be part of a random freeze of your wallet like it happened with uh Coinbase or Circle lately. Um yeah I I think is a good option to have and in this world I think our stable coins FXUSD and bold are really these decentralized stable coins and I think the future will be really binary.

I see a future for these decentralized stable coins because they have unique properties and the value proposition and then of course um these traditional stable coins stable coins tokenized products make also a lot of sense. I think it's great to have a stable coin that is backed by Treasury accessing um the yield on new rails because that's what USDC and USDTR or these yield bearing stable coins and that's a great product too but there I also think it only makes sense if they are well regulated like with the clarity act because then you you get all the safety and today we have this huge range all these shades of gray in the middle and that's for me the trust me grow zone. I have no idea what other benefits they they have because they're not really regulated. So, you don't get the safety um and you get the DeFi risk. So, you have like the worst of both world in the middle.

And I think there we will see some uh yeah less less and less stable coins that will be able to survive because I think the two extremes have very clear benefits. Um and in the middle it will get more and more difficult to survive.

You want to add something to this because I

Sorry,

I'll be quick.

Yeah. Yeah, go for it. Go for it.

Uh so I just want to say that in general year loves decentralization and onchain data. Uh what I will say is even though we heard the comment that the data is on chain, you can check it yourself. probably most people would find it much easier to read the spreadsheet from Alama that simply says 1 billion here, 1.5 billion there. So I think what we can do is we can at least try to make this onchain data more accessible to people and we'll be working on that.

Yeah. And uh to get to your point, Michael, I think one of the things that people care about, and this is something that I mentioned in the intro, it's the fact that stable coins today people keep them also to get healed on it. basically using like a savings account, right? And the problem is in the current market, uh you mentioned Athena before. Athena's uh interest rate reached over 10% 16% back then when the market was bullish on crypto.

Right now it's a dead zone. So basically all the stable coins today all the most of the stable coins are pegged to the dollar over 99.5%. Uh I believe there are like 700 million of uh euro stable coin and then like something like 150 million of the other cryptocurrencies uh other currencies sorry. Um and the thing is in this scenario when most of the yield bearing stable coins or decentralized stable coins have to compete for market share and have to compete for users.

What they have to do is to take basically more risks to offer greater yield. And I think this is one of the things that I really want to talk about because today if you want to launch a relatively stable uh and safe stable coin with yield, you have no choice but to go for the tibials interest. You have to go through either USDC or uh USDTB or the Black Rockck Beetle or whatever alternative you have uh to offer yield on your stable coin. And in all of this like scenario, how do your stable how can your stable coin even stand out if everyone is offering the T bills yield uh on their stable coin? What makes you different in this scenario?

I can tell you for us so in bold we don't have a treasury yield. We tap into the native DeFi market yield because in in liquidity we have the borrowing side and what liquidity does it funnels 100% of the the borrowing fees to the stable coin holders. Yeah. Because they they are giving the credit actually for the borrower side. So you have a different source of yield which doesn't be a risk.

You don't have counterparty risk and you get a decorrelated yield from the stratified yield which is tied to DeFi. I think just wanted to highlight this is possible.

Exactly. And your question was how do we differentiate? So first we're already differentiated because we are building decentralized solutions with unique value propositions but by distributing organic defy yield just like bold does or this is al alo what we do with the FXUSD but it's different yield sources but it's organic as well. We've been like delivering better yields than Ephina from the scratch. If you if you compare the yields, we've always delivered better yields even while scaling.

And so we delivered the better yields with lower trust assumptions. So better with lower risks like I mean if you consider the T bills at as minimum risk. I actually consider not trusting as lower risk. So in my opinion, you get better yields with lower risks. It's a no-brainer.

So that's a good differentiator

just to put that in perspective. So bold since in the last six nine months you had a yield of six to 8%. No with no counterparty risk everything on chain and compare that to Etheino which is I think a good product great team but just kind of from a risk profile a lot of people don't realize at the beginning it was the carry trade. I don't know if you noticed how the yield profile changed. Yeah, we are at 87% backed by uh T bills and um stable coins deposited into D5 protocols as well.

Yeah, then it was mainly T bills and then now more recently DeFi. Right now I don't know what it is. So everybody who holds USD, I don't know if you know it, but what you did is actually write a blank check to them and say, "Hey, you have my stable coin. I think it's great. You had the carry trade.

Right now you get 3.5%. That's the treasury yield. I don't know. They have a billion in the protocol and I'm not bashing them.

That's great. But it shows you just kind of okay there are a lot of retail user that are taking so much more risk to get the same yield they could get with a tokenized treasury.

Arguably it's worse than unsecured lending because with unsecured lending you actually sign a master loan agreement, right? Like your principle is protected like it's protected like it's expected to return, right? When you sign up for something like itina, you're basically saying, I don't know if people realize that they can return your money or not. That depends on if the strategy will be profitable or not. So we started after 2022 packaging unsecured lending this time without any legal recourse into basically teams that are operating as hedge funds and hoping that you're going to get your money back.

But coming back to your question, I think the main differentiator is the distribution, right? So we for example work with Agora USD um you would say what's the advantage of using Agora USD versus circle. Yeah. like they are basically I know partnered with monet right and uh they are incentivizing actually a lot of usage on monet therefore the majority of vaults on monet are a USD and that's their chance to basically stand out there and grow their supply and basically convert people to use to use it on a bit more um mass scale. So distribution is like with everything, right?

Like what's your story? How many deals under the table you going to do?

Yeah. But okay, let's let's talk about this example for a second because uh once again we're talking about yield, right? So whenever you have incentives, obviously you have higher usage and you have higher demand for your stable coin. But once the incentives end and I could give a very good example because if we are talking about distribution, PayPal USD is the best example. So, PYUSD has been launched in 2023 uh has been live for uh almost three years now.

Um and they even though PayPal is like one of the largest uh ecosystems where you can pay each other where you can send money to each other. When they launched PYUSD, it was directly available in the PayPal app. But they struggled to even cross 1 billion. to cross the 1 billion mark they had to say well okay all the yield we were supposed to be getting for us from the tibials we are actually going to distribute through the PayPal app it still didn't work after that they had to go to other venues like a like uh Camino like all the other chains and say hey we are going to deploy our stable coin on your chain uh we are going to put incentives but you have to put something as well just to give you uh an idea of how much it cost them I did uh some calculations for that and we are around 25 million over the course of two years. You could say it's not a lot to grow the stable coin to four billion five billion right now.

But when you're looking at the yield that it got uh it gets you um to the company itself to PayPal when you're looking at the incentives that have been deployed when you're looking at the PayPal's distribution when you're looking at one of the most popular payment apps in the world it's pretty dis disastrous I would say result today. Uh and once all the incentives end people will just flock back to other stable coins. And I think it's one of the things that has to be considered whenever you have stable coins is because yes you will have incentives but once the incentives and people will just pivot towards something else but

I think you you have to differentiate between incentives and sustainable yield.

Yeah of course of course I was I was just responding to totech regarding

you. So you know the model that tar can run I think is just insane and probably not the the normal. I think in the future it will be a race to zero because all the stable coin issues they get the interest and they will need to use it to win the distribution and the one that does it in the best way and has probably the biggest distribution will win. So I think it makes sense that they take the interest and use it to create distribution. everything else that they pay on top.

Yes, kind of there. I agree that's for me the incentives, but we've seen it with hyperlquid and the stable coin. I think it's an interesting model that say that they also take half of the interest to give back and and drive adoption and and their ecosystem. And I think that's the future and there will we see a lot of innovation. I'm really curious to see because I think it's not normal that like uh stable coins for like tether they had the great opportunity and can now milk it.

But for for everybody else that will come afterwards, it it will be different.

Yeah, I think Tether has their mode is actually in the distribution that they have today because it has the deepest liquidity, but also they it's largely used by for payments in other countries as well. So I think Tether has kind of built their mode around it and the usage of their stable coins without paying yield which is actually an extraordinary case in my opinion. But I just wanted to shift a little bit from the pure stable coin infrastructure and go a little bit more into the DeFi uh on the DeFi side because of all the DPEGs that we have and once again we're talking about systemic risks. Um today we know that for example when uh stable coin DPEGs the first ecosystem that is affected is defy because stable coins are intertwined in the defy ecosystem pretty much everywhere either lending or lping or wherever and we've seen that uh while a remains the largest lending protocol today we have seen the rise of morpho and other uh similar protocols that are offering like for example vaults and curators and a bunch of other stable coins and looping and all of the strategies to generate more yield once again. But what we are seeing is that whenever a stable coin depects basically it's up to the users to place the price.

Uh we have seen it with the USR stable coin because you had curators you had several vaults that had USR in it and at the end of the day uh the protocol itself says hey I'm decentralized I cannot uh I'm not guaranteeing for whatever happens on my platform. On the other hand, the curator says, "Hey, the decentralized protocol had a problem in their code, so I could not protect the users." And then the users and the day at the end of the day are left holding the bargain or eating their losses and getting haircuts all the time. So in this kind of situation uh where I don't want to say who do we have to blame um but I would rather I would rather say what can we do to improve it and how can we reduce these types of risks and these types of situations where the users are the ones paying price for incompetence.

No more DPEGs. Easy.

We've tried that. It didn't work. Again, trustlessness is um a path to explore on that regard because what what caused most of the DPEGs recently was abuse of trust of the users like users expected USR to always be worth one because you could mint it and redeem it uh in a permissioned way at one. uh users of usual like two years ago were expected to to stay at one because the redemption price was at one and these guys decided overnight to put it at I don't remember like 86 cents or something like that.

Yeah,

they just made that decision and that was an abuse of trust. But if the system if the the whole design is made in a way that no one can actually alter these uh contracts made with the users then there you don't need to trust and you can actually sleep well on it and integrate it with peace of mind and this is why it's important to to to put forward trustless models because they abstract this these kind of issues. I would maybe say on the curator's side, right? Like it's hard to expect that an average guy will basically say gauntlet better than steakhouse. Like they they have no clue like what's behind the underwriting of these people, what are the risk models and plenty different things.

So maybe the term open finance like open for an average Joe average Joe knows nothing about finance, right? So he doesn't know what he's signing up for and he will not know which curator is better, what they do and he will take everything for granted. For him the ticker it's yeah it's just a stable coin. This one pays higher yield than another one. So that's why we are trying to at least show what's behind but again for example we have yield bearing stable coins that allocate to Fasanara private credit fund and we verify that they have exposure there.

But can I even be the guy that will say that exposure to Fasanara is a good thing or a bad thing? I have no clue. Like they're issuing like hundred thousands of loans to um you knowmemes and so on. It's not for me to decide whether that's a good exposure and whether 10% yield on that it's a great deal or a horrible deal. So in general finance it's not easy.

People are studying that and are still stupid about it, right? So why would we expect that an average guy will know? So indeed simple solutions like you guys are offering something transparent, something decentralized, maybe that's the answer. But people will always chase the higher yield. That's the human nature.

We we do have a responsibility though by educating people the right way and choosing the right words. Basically, all the projects we've been talking about were not stable coins, but vaults sold as stable coins. And when you call something stable coin, you expect it to be stable, right? But there were vaults like as Michael said, Etheina just did whatever they wanted with the capital in it is it was sold as a car as a tokenized car trade and now it's TUS. I didn't even know they do DeFi now and people got into a strategy and I had no idea that it could change at some point.

who actually started this term yielding stable coin that's

I don't know

this guy is

but but but even were were never really transparent on on this they they were someday someday they would say it was a stable coin someday they would say oh no we're not a stable coin

the synthetic dollar they always call it the synthetic dollar it depends some from time to time it was a stable coin then it was a tokenized carry trade then back to a stable coin I guess it depends on the audience they they're talking

they they also have a stable coin the USDTB which is backed by bele from Black Rockck. So that's why I think they have to st like a stable coin lower but yeah whatever. back back to the point like it's important to call stable coins stable coins and to call vaults vaults rather than yield bearing stable coins when they are just vaults and because when there's when you enter a vault you know that there can be different backing strategies and then like curious people I know many people are not just not curious enough maybe they just want yield and period but at least when you enter into a vault you know that there's different strategies and

there are also levels to it right like for example when you go to Midas you're facing Midas as an LP because they hold the custody so basically the people that run strategies on Midas they face Midas people that deposit to Midas face Midas then you have vaults like ours where we are just providing infrastructure neutral right and then parties can run their strategies you sign up for it you can see what's behind it so and then you have vaults on morpho that can only allocate to other vaults on morpho and so on and so on so like also the term vaults can mean so many different things but I agree on average there is nothing stable about yield bearing stable coins these are basically rappers of some guys that are running a strategy and you hope you're going to get your money back with interest on top

and like the question that I have because I feel like what we are doing in crypto sitting around playing each other circle circle jerking each other like hey your product is so great so cool shouldn't we like take a page out of the book of the trati where they Now notation agencies, yeah, some sometimes they actually um are wrong because of lots of stuff, because of corruption, because of everything. But shouldn't there be a standard either for protocols to step up and say, "Hey, we are tired of the happening with curators or uh dumbbas coins that are getting listed on the platform. we are actually going to step in even though there is like maybe some legal exposure on this end but shouldn't we be the ones responsible because once again you said well we should do more education sure you can post a thread on the FX account there will be 10 people that will see it that will actually care about it the person that takes USDC out of Binance for the first time goes to Oiler deposits it into a vault they are not going to go to the FX uh protocol to read the thread about educ ification or uh they will not go to oak research to read our analysis. They don't care what they see is yield. So shouldn't be shouldn't it be enforced at the protocol level and for example with independent agencies that are responsible for rating this vaults and rating the stable coins and giving an overall rating of the risks that people are taking by depositing the funds into the vault.

Well, I would say going back to the terminology point, if you open one of these protocols where there are different risk curators, if you see this term risk curator, you will think all of these are safe. There's a risk curator. They're managing my risk. Let's get the highest number. And this again is a a name that is completely wrong because they might actually be curating the risk to be extremely high risk and yet nowhere on this DeFi app do you actually see the information about the actual risk that's being curated.

So, I think it doesn't have to necessarily be a hidden blog post. You can just have it very visible next to the deposit button. What is the risk of what I'm putting the money into? Right now, most protocols don't have this visible anywhere obvious. And this is again going back to the transparency of what DeFi should be about.

This should be information that the users can get access to. And right now there's uh some difficulties usually.

So, if I understand it correctly, it should be enforced at the protocol level. So it's up to the protocols to make these disclosures and make like the assumptions or give the rating to when the person deposits into a vault for example.

I think whoever is doing the curation related to managing the risk of where the user's money is going I think there should be some visibility there. It should not be a black box. Black box is why we are trying to get away from Trafi's approach in the first place. So

yeah and I think there it makes sense. I really like the approach. I mean, what you're calling for is kind of regulation. What we have in Trefy and disclosure and I think we shouldn't wait for it, you know, like there's a self-regulation. I think we as an industry can do a good job of be being transparent and having a good example, you know, for example, steakhouse vaults.

I didn't know it, but you can click and you see the they rate their strategies. It's really interesting. And there are some strategies there are CC. So you have also kind of strange incentives like with the rating agencies because if your vault doesn't yield, no user will go into that. So they need to take the the higher risk.

So the the the vault has an interesting yield and actually they're even transparent. Uh but probably and there is the the the second um um factor that um is problematic is that the user don't care. you know users see 2% more yield but on on the same hand they don't have the information but they're also not that interested that for example they get 10% more of risk that the whole thing defaults or I like the image you know that we that as a user we are not aware we don't are not interested kind of in how much baggage we are putting kind of on um carrying with us to get some yield so I really like the term yield baggage and Some stable coins have a lot of baggage, meaning you're exposed to different chains, you're exposed to different protocols, you're exposed to different collaterals, you're exposed to different teams with admin rights. Think of it like a 10 baggages with black boxes and compare that, I don't know, for example, to Bold where you just have a sports bag, you know, because it's one protocol, it's three collaterals, um, and that's it. Really simple.

And and I think going back to your question, yes, we should make it more transparent that people understand it. And it's also in in in the users responsibility. Hey, that's DeFi. There's not a regulator or somebody that rescues. If you like to have that, you should stay in Trefy.

I I think if you go in DeFi, it's your responsibility. You have more control, but it's also your responsibility to um to demand that and to be interested in it. Yeah,

I I do agree. But I I think it's also quite simple to shift all the blame to users and that's what most protocols uh tend to go towards it say hey you should have done your own research you know like they do your always do your before depositing but I think if you are building a car today and you forget to put brakes in the car and a person buys the car and you're like hey you should have looked at the the brakes before buying the car you know it's kind of is I I kind of see it in the same way like you you do have to do your own due diligence like you can look for example the most of the people will look at the TVL of the protocol or the history of the stable coin the it stability and if it sees if person like if you look at USR it didn't it didn't depect depect before if you look at the vaults the vaults had consistent heal for the past few months um and so whenever you don't go into the code and don't look into like different functions in the code, you're not able to properly assess the risk. And this is why I think it's quite easy to say, hey, it's up to you to do your own research. And I do agree that people that deposit into DeFi protocols, they have to understand that they are also taking a huge risk by doing so. But on the other hand, you also have to make it the easiest possible to see the risks that are associated with the various markets, with the various stable coins.

And I think that it's also up to the protocols to provide the best service for their users as well.

Yeah. And then just to correct that, I didn't want to push it to the users, but just said both have um have a have a role. You know, for example, in the steakhouse world, if if there is the rating, then maybe users should also vote and say, okay, I don't take the one with the highest yield, but actually the ones that has the most strategies that have a solid rating in it.

But do they rating themselves? just quickly and the second thing is yes I think as an industry we we we really lack these things I mean we are five or more years into DeFi and we don't know kind of for example is there a multisc or an EOA in a protocol in an easy way I I think that's really hard for

but did stakehouse rate their strategy themselves

yes

and you don't see a problem with that

that's what I was

you know it's better than most other risk raers because I haven't seen And I think it's a first step.

No, it's not. It should be an independent party.

No, no. I I I do agree with M and I see what we and this is what I was pushing for before saying that we should have a standard for doing this. But we don't have a standard. So for the moment the curators have to do it by themselves because there is no standard available and there is no agency at least not a proficient one in my opinion uh that it would be at the same level as what we see in TRFI that would be able to do so. Um,

and just to add on that, you know, because for some strategies you can't even find out how they allocate the capital. So that's why I'm highlighting that I think it's a good example even if it could be better. But you know, there are strategies I want to find out where are deploying and I can't find it out on the website.

And before you start throwing hands, we have one minute left. So I would just like to uh end this conversation with um maybe some closing remarks from you guys because we've been in the D5 space for the past six years uh since the D5 summer. Maybe for some of you guys it's been way longer. Uh but purely DeFi I think we have made a ton of mistakes in the past. We keep repeating the same mistakes.

So I think before we move on to the next conversation, what would be your advice or your learnings that uh you have seen the in the past and the you would not like to see repeat themselves. U just like some advice to founders, some advice to the protocols that exist in the space and to stable coin issuers.

Stay paranoid. Yeah, I would say stick to the core values of Ethereum and decentralization. This is the unique value proposition of blockchain. Uh keep your favorite DeFi protocol accountable, right? And push them for more transparency and you you're giving them money, right?

So if you stop, they will start pushing the boundaries and show you more.

Make sure to post on Twitter and on everyone basically.

Yeah, but but I think it's a good one, you know. I I really like it to give some more push back. Um and last thing, yeah, maybe opt for for the simple simple and transparent things.

Perfect guys. Well, thank you very much.