2025-12-27 18:23:16

When it comes to Falcon Finance, most people's minds immediately jump to USDf, sUSDf, and that over 7% annualized yield. But upon closer inspection, you'll find that the most interesting part isn't the yield figures themselves, but rather the two completely different product logics—both clearly outlining the risks in their rules.

Let's start with the Innovative Mint. The entry threshold is $50,000, and the collateral must be non-stablecoins, locked for 3 to 12 months. The key is, from day one, you have to decide: how long to lock, how much capital efficiency to use, and where to set the strike price. The system offers you three options. First, if the price falls below the liquidation line, the collateral is directly liquidated, and you survive with the USDf you initially minted. Second, if at maturity the price is between the liquidation line and the strike price, you can redeem the collateral using your original USDf. Third, if the price skyrockets above the strike price, the collateral is exited by the system, and the excess is settled with USDf.

This is not traditional collateralized lending. Frankly, you're exchanging collateral for USD liquidity over a period, while actively splitting the growth potential—part of it is yours, and part of it you give up.

Now, look at the sUSDf NFT locking scheme. It involves wrapping interest-bearing assets into NFTs, using longer lock-up periods to achieve higher yields. Both of these product designs are conveying the same message: there are no free lunches here—any gains come at a cost, whether it's sacrificing liquidity, potential upside, or freedom of choice.

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
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropAutomaton

· 12-27 18:53

Well said. The understanding that there are no free benefits is very important. --- Starting from 50,000, and still need to lock for so long? Doesn't seem that attractive. --- The design of the strike price is indeed interesting, equivalent to insuring oneself. --- Sacrificing potential upside for stable cash flow, it's just a trade-off. It depends on individual risk preferences. --- Falcon's logic is much more honest than some projects' "high APY" gimmicks, at least it clearly states the cost. --- NFT nesting— isn't that just locking liquidity in exchange for a premium? Old trick with a new package. --- The three routes are designed quite clearly, but the core remains: if you choose safety, there's no growth; if you want growth, you have to gamble. --- A 7% return seems average, and the cost is so high. It's better to mine through lending protocols. --- The core logic is: I help you lock your tokens, and I take the growth potential. That's not very attractive to me. --- Gotta admit, at least it's more transparent than those hollow protocols, knowing who you're earning money from.

View OriginalReply0

PumpBeforeRug

· 12-27 18:47

To be honest, I'm a bit convinced by this logic. I didn't realize it until I saw it.

View OriginalReply0

DAOdreamer

· 12-27 18:44

To be honest, this design logic is a bit ruthless. You have to commit all your chips from day one; there's no regret pill.

View OriginalReply0

ParallelChainMaxi

· 12-27 18:39

In simple terms, it's about using liquidity and upside potential to exchange for stable returns—nothing new. --- A $50,000 threshold, and you have to lock in for at least half a year? That's really unfriendly to retail investors. --- Interestingly, they write the risks so plainly that it actually makes people feel more at ease. --- The set of liquidation lines and strike prices feels more complicated than traditional lending, but at least the rules are transparent. --- NFTs used as yield-generating assets to stack returns—this is a real new twist, but essentially it's still a trade-off between yield and freedom. --- 7% annualized sounds good, but after understanding this logic, I see why—your upside potential has been cut. --- True innovation isn't in the yield figures but in the honesty of product design, I agree with that. --- Lock-up for 12 months? That's too harsh; I still prefer high liquidity. --- Wait, using non-stablecoins as collateral also involves liquidation risk. Playing with leverage like this feels a bit risky. --- Rather than calling it lending, it's more like packaging and restructuring your assets based on time and risk tolerance.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter

· 12-27 18:26

Wait, this mechanism essentially just puts the upside cap into the smart contract... Basically, it's still acting as the option seller, just with a different disguise.

View OriginalReply0

NotFinancialAdvice

· 12-27 18:25

To be honest, I like this logic, at least it doesn't deceive you into thinking you can earn passively. The $50,000 threshold is indeed quite high, but they clearly state the rules of the game, unlike some projects that are vague. The divided upside potential may seem like a loss at first glance, but it's actually a bet on your ability to judge the market. I just want to ask, can this liquidation logic really hold up in a bear market? Has anyone tried this Innovative Mint? How does it feel in actual operation? It looks like they've applied options strategies to lending, which is quite a fresh idea. And what about the NFT locking system? Can you really exit, or is it just another nested trap? Liquidity for yield—this depends on individual risk preferences; not everyone can play this game. Honestly, it's much more honest than those projects that boast endlessly. Starting at $50,000, this immediately filters out a lot of retail investors. The myth of easy money is dead; Falcon's approach at least doesn't deceive. Has anyone lost money, or are everyone now making profits? This product logic clearly exposes the risks, but whether it can be executed effectively is another matter.

View OriginalReply0

OnchainFortuneTeller

· 12-27 18:23

It sounds like selling liquidity for yields, with no real innovation at its core. --- Starting at $50,000? How many people can afford to play... --- Giving up upside potential for 7%, isn't that not worth it? --- Finally, there are projects willing to clearly state the risks, which is more honest than those hyping everything up. --- Liquidation, exercise, lock-up... Just reading the rules makes my head hurt. Can someone translate them for me? --- Basically, it's about the probability of the counterparty in the game; there's nothing mysterious about it. --- NFT locking with an extra layer—this feeling is getting more and more complicated. --- Liquidity for yields is never outdated; the key is how long you can hold on. --- If the collateral is a non-stablecoin, isn't that just gambling on the secondary market? --- A 7% annualized return sounds good, but with such heavy costs, isn't this just a new way to scalp retail investors?

View OriginalReply0