2026-01-06 14:23:49

Recently, I experimented with liquidity mining. To participate in a certain stablecoin mining incentive, I投入了USDT-USD1的LP头寸. Initially, the configuration was about 85% USDT and 15% USD1, but impermanent loss came quite quickly—within a few days, it evolved into a near 50-50 allocation.

Calculating the costs: borrowing 100,000 USD1 requires pledging 108,000 in collateral, plus bearing a 3% borrowing interest. After all the adjustments, the actual APY is around 16%. During the same period, a certain exchange offered a 20% APY for USD1, which makes the comparison interesting.

The problem here is quite painful: if USD1 itself has security risks, then no matter how attractive the mining returns are, DeFi lending protocols connected to this chain will also find it hard to remain safe. In other words, what appears to be a higher yield might actually be a gamble on a relatively riskier asset. Whether to participate or not depends on how much risk you can bear.

USD10,02%

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.

14 Likes

Reward
14
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

tx_or_didn't_happen

· 01-09 00:55

Impermanent loss occurs, and LP positions start to change flavor. I've seen this many times. Exchanges offer directly 20%, LP only 16%, and still risk-take... Isn't that brain damage? If USD1 itself has issues, the lending protocol will go down with it. No matter what the yield is, it's all in vain. This is the gambler's paradox—high returns are essentially betting on something unstable. Honestly, stablecoin mining sounds good, but in reality, it's playing with fire.

View OriginalReply0

MEVictim

· 01-06 14:53

Impermanent loss is a 50-50 chance right from the start, which is ridiculous. Are you working for the exchange? A 20% APY is just sitting there, and 16% still takes half a day to figure out. No matter how you calculate it, it doesn't add up. Basically, it's a gamble on whether USD1 won't collapse. If you bet wrong, your account is wiped out.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoTarotReader

· 01-06 14:48

Is this the same "high yield" scheme again? Turns out the LP position hasn't stabilized yet and is already jumping off a cliff. Impermanent loss is just a greedy tax. Why not just go to the exchange and get 20% APY? Why bother with these fancy leveraged loans... Honestly, it's just betting that this new stablecoin won't have any issues. If USD1 really has a problem, your LP position and lending protocol will go down together. Just thinking about it is unbearable.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeTrustFund

· 01-06 14:41

Impermanent loss directly hit back, this is the true portrayal of liquidity mining. Honestly, a 16% actual APY is not worth the hassle at all; it's much better to go to an exchange and enjoy a 20% APY. USD1 feels a bit risky, betting it won't explode is less safe than just holding stablecoins. The higher the yield, the greater the risk. Hopefully now you understand. A 50-50 allocation indicates that the market is not optimistic about USD1; impermanent loss is a vivid reflection. Borrowing to mine is a bit outrageous; the interest on these three points directly erodes the returns. Why bother? They made it too complicated—just two words—greedy.

View OriginalReply0