2026-01-10 23:24:49

Have you ever wondered why operating the USD1 liquidity pool never quite meets expectations?

Many people are stuck on the same problem—slisBNB, clisBNB, and LISTA each play their own roles at different levels, unable to see each other. The underlying credit advantages can't be leveraged upward, the governance benefits at the top can't be passed down, and the middle layer is like a conveyor belt—meaningless in practice. As a result, returns can only be simply summed across layers, with an annualized rate around 45%. When the ecosystem adjusts or market fluctuations occur, a problem in one layer can cause the entire pool to suffer.

How do true experts approach this? They break down this wall.

The core idea isn't complicated: truly connect the three layers of rights and interests. The credit foundation of slisBNB must support the upper layers, the circulation channel of clisBNB should become a hub for the entire chain, and LISTA's governance rights should empower the underlying layers in reverse. Ultimately, forming a closed loop—bottom foundation, middle transmission, top amplification, and all layers feeding back. Information and value flow freely, turning hidden gains into definite returns.

Last year, many operators experimented with this methodology, using USD1 pools of around $500,000 to test and discover patterns over multiple ecosystem cycles. How effective was it? They achieved a qualitative breakthrough in annualized returns. The key lies in this "penetration"—no longer relying on a single layer of rights, no longer stuck at one level, but making the entire system come alive.

LISTA0,12%

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.

10 Likes

Reward
10
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

pumpamentalist

· 01-12 05:28

To be honest, I'm already tired of these three layers each doing their own thing. The lag is really severe.

View OriginalReply0

AlgoAlchemist

· 01-11 11:23

Not connecting these three layers is indeed a pain point; a 45% annualized rate really feels like a ceiling.

View OriginalReply0

BankruptcyArtist

· 01-10 23:53

45% annualized? That must be so boring, just lying flat and collecting interest.

View OriginalReply0

ZenChainWalker

· 01-10 23:53

To be honest, I've heard this set of arguments several times, but the key still depends on how the actual returns turn out.

View OriginalReply0

DeFiAlchemist

· 01-10 23:52

*adjusts alchemical instruments* so they're finally cracking the transmutation code... three siloed layers behaving like separate dimensions, each hoarding their yield while the whole system stays fragmented. the 45% apr ceiling isn't a limit, it's a symptom of incomplete protocol integration.

Reply0

BuyHighSellLow

· 01-10 23:48

Ha, words sound nice, but you have to try it yourself to know if it works or not. I've long seen that these three layers are disconnected; the profit ceiling is truly absolute. Let's gamble on this "penetration" approach; anyway, it's a dead end either way. This set of logic sounds sweet, but the key is who bears the execution costs and risks. Don't believe that this closed loop can be maintained if the market crashes next time. It seems like it's just giving some players an excuse to get on board. The reason why the 45% annualized rate is stuck is also valid; don't be blinded by innovation.

View OriginalReply0

RektRecorder

· 01-10 23:46

Ah, well, basically everyone is doing their own thing without integration, no wonder it's so laggy.

View OriginalReply0

DancingCandles

· 01-10 23:42

The idea of connecting these three layers is indeed impressive, but a pool of 500,000 USD breaking through just like that is a bit uncertain based on the data.

View OriginalReply0

0xOverleveraged

· 01-10 23:28

The logic of these three layers being connected sounds good, but is it really that simple in practice? Are there really people earning such outrageous returns? I feel like it's all just post-hoc rationalization. Connecting the layers is one thing, but when a black swan event occurs, it might all collapse together. The $500,000 trial from last year, is it still alive? That's the real point. Talking about theories is useless; show me the numbers. It feels like putting eggs in more baskets—whether risks are truly diversified or just a different name. The biggest risk with this multi-layer linkage is if one part gets stuck, then the whole system becomes a joke. If the annualized return really exceeds 50%, I would be the first to jump in.

View OriginalReply0