Savings USDS price

The largest yield-bearing stablecoin in crypto just landed on The Interchain! Thanks to IBC Eureka, Pryzm unlocks new utility for $sUSDS (formerly $sDAI) - now you can seamlessly bridge $sUSDS from @ethereum to @cosmos and put it to work in @Pryzm_Zone. The future of cross-chain DeFi is here.

With sUSDS collateral now on @arbitrum on Fluid, check out the Multiply tab for looping against sUSDS. sUSDS = 4.5% APR USDC/USDT debt = 1.5% APR to borrow Max looping = 14x multiplier Max leverage APY = 44.2% The debt LP (USDT/USDC) actually costs 3.5% APR to borrow but the Smart Debt LP is passively earning 2% APR in trading fees from Fluid DEX so the net cost to borrow is only ~1.5% APR. Part of the magic here is this Smart Debt LP which despite demand to borrow stablecoins on Fluid, is subsidized with real trading fees bringing down the cost to borrow stablecoins. The other part of this setup I love is the fixed 4.5% APR powering the collateral that is sUSDS. When I look for looping, I don't like to play with strategies reliant on 2 volatile rates (supply vs borrow). The fixed collateral yield makes my life easier. Link to Multiply sUSDS x USDT/USDC strategy:

sUSDS is now live on Fluid on @arbitrum Borrow against sUSDS while the USDC-USDT Smart Debt is earning trading fees and reducing your borrowing costs 🌊

Author: Pink Brains Compilation: Tim, PANews Interest-bearing stablecoins have become the focus of the current cycle with three characteristics: real income, low volatility, and airdrop opportunities, and Resolv is about to become the next stablecoin protocol to issue tokens. Here's what you need to know about Resolv and the RESOLV token: Resolv is a stablecoin protocol that aims to solve the following specific problem: How do you build a stablecoin that can earn real, sustainable yields without taking unnecessary risks? Their answer: scalable structure, transparency, and earning mechanisms. Resolv's core product is the stablecoin USR, which is backed by ETH and BTC. The platform uses a delta-neutral strategy (mainly hedged by perpetual contracts) to convert volatile assets into productive collateral while maintaining price stability. This is not the first of its kind (e.g. Ethena's USDe) model, but Resolv has found a product-market fit. Resolv divides risk into two parts: stUSR: Low-risk, interest-bearing stablecoin RLP: A medium-risk, high-return position that earns income by taking on the performance risk of the agreement This dual structure is crucial because it allows capital to make its own choices based on risk appetite, which is a common way traditional finance treats returns. Where do the benefits come from? There are three ways for Resolv to achieve stablecoin yields: 1. ETH/BTC staking through Lido and Binance 2. Perpetual contracts for Binance, Hyperliquid, and Deribit 3. U.S. Dollar Neutral Strategy (Superstate USCC) The yield of stUSR is comparable to that of sUSDe and sUSDS, while the insurance mechanism is enhanced through RLP. At the same time, RLP's high yields are also reflected in another aspect, outperforming US Treasuries-backed stablecoins such as $USDY by capturing the upside of the Resolv strategy. Since its public launch in September 2024, Resolv has achieved the following: $344.1 million in TVL (across Ethereum, Base, and BNB Chains); The total amount minted and redeemed is more than $1.7 billion; Actual proceeds distributed exceed $10 million; More than 50,000 users (56% of monthly active users) In addition, USR and stUSR are jointly managed by top DeFi protocols (such as Pendle, Morpho, Euler, Curve, Hyperliquid, etc.) and other capital allocators. For a newly launched stablecoin protocol, such a performance is truly admirable. Now, Resolv plans to launch its native token, RESOLV, in the first two weeks of this month. RESOLV Tokenomics: Total Supply: 1 billion Season 1 Airdrop: 10% (unlocked at TGE) Ecosystem & Community: 40.9% (10% unlocked at TGE, 24 months linear vesting of remaining tokens) Team: 26.7% (1 year lock-up, followed by 30 months linear vesting) Investors: 22.4% (1 year lock-up, then 24 months linear vesting) Token Utility: Governance (Treasury Strategy + Incentive Plan); Double rewards (token distribution + external partner earnings); integral multiplier; Obtain the qualification of the partner for future airdrops; What's next for Resolv after TGE? Resolv aims to be an architecture that seamlessly integrates stable income into all layers of on-chain finance. 1. Optimize the segregated vault for Delta neutral returns 2. Allocate funds to Treasury bills and RWA-backed stablecoins 3. Altcoin vault 4. External income (treasury cooperation, swap instruments and redemptions) Resolv's goal is to build an efficient yield cycle that continues to return value to RESOLV holders. Resolv is not just a stablecoin, it is evolving into an on-chain currency. If you've been farming XP with USR and stUSR, now is the time to reap the rewards! TGE and airdrops are coming, stay tuned!

Author: Jacek Compiler: Deep Tide TechFlow Not all stablecoins are created equal. In fact, there are two main core uses for stablecoins: Transfer funds → payment stablecoins Value-added funds → income-based stablecoins This simple distinction is not comprehensive, but it is very useful and instructive for many. This division should guide our thinking as we drive adoption, optimize the user experience, develop regulatory policies, and design use cases. Of course, other, more complex categorizations (e.g., by collateral type, anchoring mechanism, degree of decentralization, or regulatory status) are still important, but they often do not directly reflect the actual needs of users. Stablecoins are widely considered to be a breakthrough application in the crypto space, but to scale up, we need a more user-centric framework. You're not going to use the money in the proceeds vault to buy coffee, are you? Putting two types of stablecoins into one category (as many data panels do) is like putting your salary into a hedge fund: technically possible, but not quite logically sound. Of course, the line between the two is not always clear. Stablecoins can play the role of both payment and yield, and each design has its own risks. Here, I'll focus on the main uses of the user and refine this distinction to make it less simplistic: Payment-first stablecoins: remain pegged as much as possible, with the goal of instant payouts and low-cost settlements; Usually the proceeds are reserved for the issuer; Income operations can still be carried out in the lending market; Optimized for simplicity and ease of use. Yield-first stablecoins: still aim to remain anchored, but typically pass on the benefits of a specific yield strategy to holders; Usually used for holding rather than consumption; The design forms are diverse and complex. As mentioned, stablecoins can switch between payment and yield roles. However, the separation between payments and earnings can help enable a smarter user experience, a clearer regulatory framework, and easier adoption. It's the same anchoring mechanism (as it usually is), but it serves a very different purpose. This simple framework takes a market-driven perspective, starting from how people actually use stablecoins, rather than from code or regulations. REGULATORS HAVE BEGUN TO REFLECT THIS DIVISION, SUCH AS THE "PAYMENT STABLECOINS" MENTIONED IN THE US GENIUS ACT. Builders are also practicing this philosophy, such as the SkyEcosystem project, which I have been involved in for a long time, which separates USDS (spending/payment) from sUSDS (earnings). So, what can the division of payments and earnings bring us? A better risk framework The risk assessment of yield-based stablecoins should pay attention to: income sources and their health, strategy concentration, redemption/exit risk, resilience of the anchoring mechanism, leverage usage, protocol risk exposure, etc. Payment stablecoins, on the other hand, need to pay more attention to anchor stability, market depth and liquidity, redemption mechanism, reserve quality and transparency, as well as issuer risks. Uniform risk assessment metrics cannot be applied to all types of stablecoins. Popularity of the retail market This distinction between payments and earnings is in line with the traditional financial (TradFi) mindset and reduces user confusion and operational errors. Novice users should not unknowingly hold complex yield tokens. Better User Experience (UX) Service providers such as wallets should avoid confusing payment and yield stablecoins, which can lead to user confusion. This distinction will unlock a simpler and smarter wallet user experience. While the difference between the two is well known to experienced users, it can be clearly marked in the user interface to help newcomers understand. This improvement will also simplify the integration of neobanks and other fintech companies. Of course, the real UX challenge isn't just labeling, but also educating users about tail risks. Adoption in the institutional market The separation of payments and earnings is consistent with existing financial classifications, helping to improve accounting treatment, risk segregation, and support a clearer regulatory framework. Clearer regulation Payment and yield stablecoins will be regulated differently. These two types of products have different risk profiles, so it is natural for regulators to distinguish between them. Payments and investments (securities in the broadest sense) almost always have completely different regulatory regimes around the world. This is no coincidence. Legislators are already working in this direction: for example, the GENIUS Act in the United States and the MiCAR Regulation in the European Union recognize this. THIS DOESN'T MEAN THAT PAYMENT STABLECOINS WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YIELD (AS DISCUSSED IN THE GENIUS ACT), BUT THEIR ROLE IS CLOSER TO THAT OF A SAVINGS ACCOUNT THAN A BROAD INVESTMENT PRODUCT. It's not a perfect model, but it's the simplest way to get directions While this framework is not yet perfect, it is the easiest way to position products, users, and policies around purpose. Some shortcomings: Earnings is a complex category with multiple subcategories. Yield-based stablecoins cover a variety of sub-types with different structures, risks, and uses. Some borrow through DeFi, some stake ETH, and some buy treasury bonds. It's a huge concept that is subject to change as the market matures, especially with regulatory intervention. In the future, the concept of "yield-based stablecoins" may be split into more specific and clear categories. Revenue attribution: If the revenue is not passed on to users, then the revenue will usually be taken by other participants (usually the issuer). As mentioned earlier, stablecoins can move from "issuer earnings" to "holders' earnings". In addition, stablecoin users can also earn income through the lending market, and it is uncertain whether yielding stablecoins are sufficiently different from other secondary sources of income from the user's perspective. Naming controversy: Some argue that this broader category should be referred to as "yield tokens" rather than "yield stablecoins." This view is reasonable, but in reality yielding stablecoins have emerged as a distinct subcategory characterized by stable anchoring mechanisms and specific user personas. They are often seen as a separate class from tokenized real-world assets (RWAs), liquid staking tokens (LSTs), or other DeFi structured yield products for non-stablecoins. This trend is likely to continue to evolve as the market evolves, especially when it comes to yield-based stablecoins with an adjustable supply, where the boundaries tend to blur. Payment-based stablecoins may also provide yields: in the future, this boundary may be defined by regulation. For example, the MiCAR Regulation prohibits payment-based stablecoins from providing yields, while the GENIUS Act debates this. The market will adjust accordingly according to the regulatory framework. These concerns do exist. However, treating "stablecoins" as a single category in general does not help solve the problem. The distinction between payment and income is a fundamental and long-overdue framework. We should clearly label this division and build around it. If your stablecoin doesn't easily fall into one of these two categories, make that clear as well. More research is still needed, especially for assets that blur the line (e.g., tokens with an adjustable supply) or that are completely outside of this framework (e.g., non-stable yield tokens and tokenized real-world assets).