Institutional-grade yield is a core primitive for any financial product. Our partnership with @MapleFinance brings their expertise to builders in the Plasma ecosystem.

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

Andy declares Neo Finance as "the most important category in the entire space" as DeFi and legacy finance converge. "You've got DeFi, you've got legacy finance, and right in the middle you've got the protocols you wanna bet on." - @SkyEcosystem - @chainlink - @aave - @CantonNetwork - @m0 - @Morpho - @USDai_Official - @Plasma - @pendle_fi - @Paxos - @ethena_labs - @daylightenergy - @ether_fi - @redstone_defi - @0xPolygon - @stripe - @sparkdotfi

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

Plasma will win so hard in 2026 🙏🏼

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

I'm still so damn bullish on @Plasma https://t.co/mQDfE5stLq

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

A reminder that Plasma is financial infrastructure designed to allow anyone to spend, save, earn and send with as few friction points as possible. Rain is a card issuer that will turbocharge this process. Your USDT will be usable for goods and services almost anywhere.

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

2025 was the year of Stablecoin Tokenization, $300B and growing: 1. Tether $187B 2. Circle $74B 3. Sky $9.5B 4. Ethena $6.3B 5. Paxos/PayPal $3.6B 6. Maple $2.1B 7. Ondo $828M 2026 will be about the tokenization of TradFi (Stock and Fund Tokenization) 1. Backed Finance XStocks 2. BlackRock's BUIDL 3. Ondo Tokenized stocks 4. Midas 5. RobinHood Sector growth was already up 3000% for 2025. We are still very early.

Name & Symbol: Ondo ($ONDO)
Address: 0xfaba6f8e4a5e8ab82f62fe7c39859fa577269be3

Plasma is going to make it 2026 will feature tons of new product being shipped, adoption, deeper capital markets, and Sky coming to the chain with a new star

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

ethereum raised $18.3m built before crypto was even an industry shipped real decentralization 100% uptime despite dozens of upgrades, it has been running non-stop for 10 years, 4 months, and 15 days tvl: $97b total value secured on l2s: $37.8b home to the most used, real defi applications in crypto hosts over 50% of all circulating stablecoins on the l2 side, it has already reached ~32k tps, with a 100k tps mainnet roadmap ready the true home of tokenization the place where long-term plans are made instead of chasing temporary hypes and narratives the only truly neutral, high-economic-activity blockchain unlike foundations that dumped unknown amounts of tokens on retail and likely burned through their treasuries, ethereum has been transparent about its treasury for over a decade hosts over 80% of all rwas its etf became the 3rd fastest in history to reach $10b in assets institutions are building on ethereum and people like tom lee continue to accumulate eth the global settlement layer the world computer it’s sitting at a $377b fdv, roughly the same amount of capital that was wasted and burned by all the so-called competing l1s over the years so yes, it deserves far more moon that

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

Unpopular take: ETH has way more long-term upside than BTC. One of the reasons I created https://t.co/CanopzxSz5. Don't get me wrong, I love Bitcoin too – digital gold and all that. But Ethereum's building the actual internet of value with Stablecoin, RWA, DeFi, NFTs, L2s blowing up, and real utility driving demand. Bullish on both tho.

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

To add here: a lot of folks have been calling onchain real-world asset financing “private credit,” but the term doesn’t really fit anymore in the context of Infrafi - because private credit is inherently illiquid. InfraFi is the industralization of liquidity for assets that have property rights onchain - the actual reason for the tokenization supercycle (otherwise, why actually tokenize?) In legacy private credit, the lender HOLD the risk, and so the pricing very episodic (also called "low mark to market"), and every deal is bespoke. It literally costs >500k in legal fees to do 1 private credit deal. The bottleneck is underwriting here in the very way centralized credit is wired in tradfi. Decentralized liquidity What’s emerging now is different. Once a physical asset can be tokenized and wrapped in a standardized, enforceable claim, the work shifts from underwriting to issuance - in a single multicall. In order to do a typical ABS style instrumentation (this is why you can get a loan for a car, house, equipment, etc) is that you have instruments that absorb the supply, since its NOT about underwriting, but simple exposure. Click buy, and now you have 10000x more users holding that risk. The instrument becomes the product. Risk is liquid. After that, everything behaves like a market: > Risk becomes modular and transferable instead of trapped on a balance sheet. > Pricing becomes continuous instead of negotiated. Exposure. Underwriting becomes reusable infrastructure, instead of the high-friction, one-off exercises “private credit going onchain.” < untradable assets becoming marketable instruments So yeah, Infrafi is the native integration of defi liquidity instrumentation into assets that were otherwise completely stuck. toeknized private credit ignores liquidity, which is almost always the reason bluechipcollateralrwastablecoins break. Just look back at them like anzen to usual. they IGNORE the liquidity componnent ----- The retro question then becomes: if tokenization is just about representation, why not tokenize hedge funds? Well, without enforceable property rights and native liquidity surfaces, tokenization is entirely ornamental. With InfraFi, it becomes industrially necessitated and fully engrained with DeFi's native mechanisms

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

RWA Looping is going to be absolutely huge The golden age of private credit will happen on chain

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

Rome was not built in a day, or a year. It took centuries. Hyperliquid will not become the home of all finance in a year. It will take years, if not decades. Our vision for Plasma is grand, and we will undoubtedly deliver on it.

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

i agree with a lot of what stani says here in principle, but i have to call out that this post misrepresents how aave operates in practice aave is not an isolated lending market in the way people typically understand this term- while it is isolated from other curators, with everything managed under aave dao/aave service provider curation, each asset within aave core is connected with all others allowing for collateral lending and rehypothecation. @SebVentures put it pretty succinctly here: https://t.co/0zzdulLu4f there are certain advantages to having upgradable market parameters- for example, it makes it simpler to update oracles if a pegged asset fails. but whether curation decisions happen at the level of market parameter upgrades or capital allocation decisions makes no difference in how curators respond to competitive pressure and profit motives aave dao+service providers face the same competitive pressures as any other curator while managing their users' assets. they want to achieve top line metric growth like tvl (see https://t.co/mXnF6WmcNn) and increase their profitability, and they may be incentivized to cut corners or take actions that negatively impact the safety profile and risk adjusted returns of their users to achieve this. having upgradable markets does not remove principal agent problems inherent to risk curation, and while fixed fee contracts may help with incentive alignment, service providers will naturally cater to the preferences of key stakeholders to avoid being fired (independence within a dao model can be limited) effectively, as a unified market aave is tying the solvency of the entire protocol to the weakest collateral assets. one bad apple spoils the bunch - failure of one collateral asset could quickly spread to other markets as users rush to withdraw or borrow out any available liquidity. and because aave does not have a way to segregate high risk from low risk collateral assets it systematically underprices risk from long tail assets or tokenized hedge funds, which drags down risk adjusted returns for end users aave/compound style unified lending infrastructure has been a huge unlock for defi allowing more efficient capital formation, but it ultimately works best under a deliberately risk-averse strategy where all of the collateral assets have similar levels of tail risk (where it makes sent to charge a uniform risk premia across assets, and suppliers can be somewhat indifferent between which particular assets are backing their lent funds) in my view, aave has seen considerable mandate drift in the past 1-2 years, allowing flavor-of-the-month looping strategies to begin crowding out lower risk overcollateralized lending activity. so far, they have been able to retain users based on inertia and the strength of their brand (just use aave), but imo the market will put sharper focus on risk-adjusted returns over time. hopefully aave v4 will address some of the infra shortfalls that make v3 markets unsuitable for margining long tail assets and tokenized hedge funds. until then, users can always use other lending protocols that allow risk based pricing (eg. morpho) or adhere to low-risk-only collateral policy (sparklend) ultimately, diversity of curators and lending infrastructure is a good thing and it pushes everyone to do better for users. rather than trying to stifle competition, we should be demanding greater transparency and visibility into protocol and curator risk, to allow users to make informed decisions with their money. EF's focus on low risk defi, recent ratings initiatives from the likes of @CredoraNetwork and @SPGlobalRatings, and other initiatives yet to come will be key to making sure defi innovation continues moving the space forward, while minimizing tail risks and moral hazard

Name & Symbol: Morpho Token ($MORPHO)
Address: 0x58d97b57bb95320f9a05dc918aef65434969c2b2

Its also very clear there is a hardcore RWA looping community thats beginning to form and thats cool too Its not perps or memecoins but a seperate third thing Cypherpunk and TradCore lending markets convergence

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e

This transaction makes @grovedotfinance the third largest institutional holder of JAAA AAA CLO ETF behind @BankofAmerica and @MorganStanley Starting to get into the big leagues now w

Name & Symbol: Yei Finance ($CLO)
Address: 0x81d3a238b02827f62b9f390f947d36d4a5bf89d2

There’s several issues here. First, even if we agree to go with a middle ground, then USDe should have been allowed to depeg for DeFi to .995 rather than be hard coded to 1. This is safer because there could be instances where the deepest pools of liquidity depeg more than that. Second, I even if I agree with the framing that the goal is to separate out the case of temporary secondary price dislocation versus permanent impairment of collateral, this goal is not easily achievable in true tail scenarios. From the perspective of Binance, they can 1) use an oracle that looks at deeper liquidity pools that are not their own to determine if USDe should be liquidated as collat or 2) they can treat all of DeFi and other exchanges as invisible and exogenous to their own closed system. If they chose 2), then they are not able to determine what is a temporary dislocation versus a true impairment of collateral because it looks the same to them. So then how things played out is exactly the result. If they choose 1), then there are other tradeoffs. 1a) They are effectively loaning their own balance sheet out temporarily based on the trust they have toward the custodian, the oracle provider, and other exchanges. In extreme cases where let’s say USDe becomes hugely successful and much bigger, Binance would be betting the solvency of their exchange on trusted third parties. If they are wrong in their judgement, users hold the bag. At this point, you might as well just formalize a cross-industry clearinghouse thus reinventing the wheel from tradfi. That would at least be better than the current structure. 1b) In the time it takes MMs to cut over liquidity from USDe DeFi pools to CeFi, the liquidity on Curve/Uni/Fluid could deteriorate. In other words, local books guarantee higher solvency than expecting liquidity to be cut over from external books which is not as instant. Easy example is if two exchanges have local book dislocations and then wait to liquidate based on a DeFi oracle. MMs go to grab the same liquidity to service two exchanges. You can’t grab the same liquidity even though it initially looks like you can. Third, at some point the tri-party custodian agreements will be tested. The custodian will have to decide whether an incoming margin call is real or fictitious. If they ignore a real margin call, Ethena is safe but the exchange and its users get rekt. If they fulfill a fictitious margin call, Ethena gets rekt and true impairment of collateral will happen. Fourth, if Ethena has a special deal with exchanges for ADL protection, does that mean any firm with the same transparency, similar risk profile, and a tri-party custody agreement can get this privilege? If not, this would break exchange neutrality. If so, it puts undue burden on the exchanges to have case-by-case customized integrations to check up on any user who wants this. The issue here is that exchanges are taking on brokerage function. The exchange should be neutral while the brokerage doesn’t have to be. The brokerage risks their own balance sheet in isolation but the exchange, by risking their balance sheet, affects solvency for all users. This would also be a reinventing of the wheel from tradfi but long term would help avoid conflicts of interest.

Name & Symbol: Fluid ($FLUID)
Address: 0x6f40d4a6237c257fff2db00fa0510deeecd303eb

Why did @Tether_to invest in @Plasma? Because most blockchains are still chasing hype instead of solving real problems, too many are optimized for fast meme coin listings instead of usability. But the real-world utility of USDT proves something deeper: if you build tools that work for people, they’ll use them. Plasma aims to make stablecoins cheaper and simpler to move - no more needing ETH just to send digital dollars. After years in this space, @paoloardoino’s bet is clear: blockchain should stop building for geeks and start building for everyday users. Paolo Ardoino's full podcast out NEXT week! @pauliepunt

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

In just over two weeks, Plasma ranks 5th by stablecoin supply. The chain for money is already here. https://t.co/cUYLfLGd3D

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

A strong start in our new home, @Plasma - almost $400M in just 6 days 🫱🏻‍🫲🏻 If this is what <1 week in Plasma can do, we can’t wait to see what more markets, more time, more Pencosystem integrations and more rewards will bring 😉 TRILLIONS. https://t.co/QJ0FPRfFMq

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

Deploying into defi via Binance to safely earn 7% (where your stablecoins are backed 1:1 with T bills) > deploying into a bank account (w/ single digit % reserve requirements) where they are printing loans off of your deposits $1b+ (largest cefi-defi integration). Go @Plasma

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

"Global commerce will move on stablecoin rails and @Plasma is going to power it." Play that on repeat. @pauliepunt the 🐐

Name & Symbol: Plasma ($XPL)
Address: 0x405fbc9004d857903bfd6b3357792d71a50726b0

James Wynn(@JamesWynnReal) claimed $8,032.5 in referral rewards and went long on $ASTER while shorting $HYPE. https://t.co/FX6sISWuDP https://t.co/FK1CAOA3yz

Name & Symbol: Aster ($ASTER)
Address: 0x000ae314e2a2172a039b26378814c252734f556a

Additional details regarding Sky USDH proposal I think the Sky USDH proposal is super exciting and I'm really glad to see the overwhelming positive response!! Sky has not before publicly committed to working with Hyperliquid, but had several projects under way in stealth mode. Regardless of how the USDH vote turns out, due this huge outpouring of warm support I think it's guaranteed there will be a long lasting and synergetic relationship between Sky and Hyperliquid far into the future! Over the course of today I will be going on Podcasts and Twitter Spaces to clarify the Sky USDH proposal Alongside post is a follow up to the Sky Powered USDH proposal yesterday, and will clarify some additional details and answer common questions What does Sky get out of the proposal? I think Hyperliquid and Sky are very aligned in having a focus on sustainable, no-nonsense business models with clear revenue and profits. Some people have been reacting to the proposal, wondering if it's a "bribe" and wondering what benefit Sky gets. Sky actually gets a large direct financial benefit, while also giving Hyperliquid a very good deal and I want to spell that out so nobody thinks the deal could be potentially unsustainable for Sky. The USDH Yield Sky currently charges a spread of 30bps between the Savings Rate (for people who hold stable coins) and the Base Rate (for Stars that borrow stable coins). Hyperliquid would get the entire Savings Rate (currently 4.75%), and also get 10bps of the spread (known as the Integrator Reward), for a total of 4.85%. The other 20bps would be split, with 10bps going to the Hyperliquid Star, and the last 10bps going to Sky. So Sky would make a spread on USDH, however, it would be extremely efficient with Sky making sure Hyperliquid gets the overwhelming majority of the economics. Even if USDH grew to 5 billion, Sky would earn just 5 million per year from that. The Hyperliquid Star Sky can deploy 25 million USDH to capitalize a Hyperliquid focused Star that would turbocharge DeFi on Hyperliquid and grow adoption of USDH. The tokens for the Hyperliquid Star would be exclusively farmed out on Hyperliquid. However, this is not a 25 million bribe to the Hyperliquid community, as the stable coins paying out Star Token Rewards, would also not pay out the Savings Rate, making the Star a sustainable project for Sky. Sidenote: The community could also choose to enable sUSDH on Hyperliquid, which would give USDH holders the ability to earn a return on their USDH - but if this is enabled, then the Savings Rate for those users would be redirected to the users, rather than to HYPE buybacks, again ensuring the whole thing is sustainable. Multichain Access to the USDH Savings Rate The entire Savings Rate and Integrator Reward of USDH will go to HYPE buybacks, but this will only apply to USDH on Hyperliquid and Ethereum Mainnet. For other multichain instances of USDH, it will use something called the Pioneer system, which uses the leftover Savings Rate to act as an incentive for new Stars to build up the infrastructure and network effects required to bring the stablecoin multi chain. This ensures that USDH will grow autonomously, without relying on a single team, and instead accessing a vast ecosystem of self-incentivized builders. Priority is USDH adoption As many people have pointed out, winning the USDH ticker is just the beginning. The actual challenge will be to turn it into something meaningful that synergies with the Hyperliquid community and resonates with the users. Right now, the big selling point with potential for viral adoption is to align incentives by ensuring that broad USDH adoption results in a additional HYPE buybacks. However, if that approach fails to gain traction, then redirecting 100% of barely any income still means barely any buybacks. So while I think the right initial approach that has potential is the 100% buybacks, the community should be prepared to experiment with other approaches if it fails to reach critical mass - one obvious idea would be to pass on the return specifically to the users who actually hold USDH, which would just mean better efficiency in the ecosystem, preventing Hyperliquids users from leaking value over time and this increasing trading activity and trading fees for Hyperliquid. This can also be paired with other creative approaches leveraging Sky Stars to boost adoption and build up sustainable Hyperliquid stablecoin growth over time. Conversion of USDH to a Generator Agent In the future, when the infrastructure is mature, Sky will spin off USDH into a Generator Agent. This means that USDH will become completely financially autonomous, and can pursue its own strategy including for things like collateral risk management, go to market strategy, and regulatory strategy. The USDH Generator Agent, will also have tokens just like the Star Agent, and will be exclusively farmed out on Hyperliquid. The community will then be able to decide which direction to take USDH with its own native and highly advanced governance system. The Generator Agent will inherit the same standard economics of other Generator Agents in Sky, and will be able to set fees and spreads on all USDH across all chains, fully making it an autonomous first class citizen for the Hyperliquid community. Every market, and every community is different, and it could be that the best fit for Hyperliquid is a higher risk stablecoin that gives a very competitive return, like Ethena, or maybe a stablecoin that prioritizes regulatory compliance. This should be up to the community to decide once they have the right tools to understand all of the tradeoffs. GENIUS act compliance USDH will not be GENIUS act compliant at inception, and no stablecoin can be yet. But with the Generator Agent approach, the community will be able to explore every possible solution for making USDH functionally GENIUS compliant. DAI, USDS and Sky USDH are decentralized stable coins, which is ultimately not what the GENIUS regulation was designed to cover, but there are already many proposals and ideas for how it would be possible to align DeFi and regulation. Most importantly, the composition of the collateral portfolio is essential for regulatory compliance, and this is something the Generator Agent will have full control over. Feel free to ask more questions here and I'll answer. Also, I am grinding to reach level 3 in discord soon so I can answer inside the forum thread itself 😀

Name & Symbol: Starpower Network ($STAR)
Address: 0x8fce7206e3043dd360f115afa956ee31b90b787c

no one should be buying USDai in the secondary markets right now if you want Allo points, head to @euler_mab or @SiloFinance and provide USDC/USDT/USDe liquidity and earn 2x what you would normally instead of minting USDai and if you want to mint, you can do that later

Name & Symbol: Allo ($RWA)
Address: 0x9c8b5ca345247396bdfac0395638ca9045c6586e