Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL. With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement. Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral. Okay, it seems rather ordinary. Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text. Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest. In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs. That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity. In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees. Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build. Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason. The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that. The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments. Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds. The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols; Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols. Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer. Specific operating methods Typical lending agreements: Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token) Fluid method: Usage 1: Ordinary Loans Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere. Use Case 2: Smart Debt While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt. Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation. What are the trade-offs of Fluid? Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions. In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range. Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss". Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation). For example, Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800. 1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss. 2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range. At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price. If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state. In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC. However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing). Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced? Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs. Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”. In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself. In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool." When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly. Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing. For another example, Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000). At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800. 1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate) As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining). The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH. 2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880. The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC. Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH. The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom. At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000. Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required) As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees). Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared. Fluid Forced Rebalancing Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100. Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later. The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value. At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC. Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss. The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss. First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs. Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed. Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio. If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days? Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets. Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate? For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets. Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue. Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below. Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%. If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation. This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%. A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage. This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage. Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders. Can I buy $FLUID tokens? To be honest, I'm not sure. Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue. However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders. Summarize Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project. Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL. With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement. Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral. Okay, it seems rather ordinary. Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text. Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest. In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs. That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity. In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees. Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build. Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason. The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that. The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments. Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds. The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols; Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols. Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer. Specific operating methods Typical lending agreements: Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token) Fluid method: Usage 1: Ordinary Loans Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere. Use Case 2: Smart Debt While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt. Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation. What are the trade-offs of Fluid? Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions. In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range. Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss". Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation). For example, Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800. 1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss. 2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range. At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price. If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state. In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC. However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing). Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced? Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs. Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”. In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself. In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool." When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly. Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing. For another example, Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000). At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800. 1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate) As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining). The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH. 2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880. The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC. Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH. The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom. At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000. Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required) As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees). Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared. Fluid Forced Rebalancing Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100. Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later. The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value. At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC. Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss. The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss. First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs. Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed. Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio. If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days? Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets. Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate? For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets. Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue. Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below. Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%. If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation. This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%. A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage. This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage. Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders. Can I buy $FLUID tokens? To be honest, I'm not sure. Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue. However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders. Summarize Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project. Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.

High-leverage stablecoin arbitrage tool? A detailed analysis of Fluid's 39x leverage strategy and the duality of its "low liquidation penalty".

2025/12/08 18:00

Fluid is an interesting, difficult-to-understand, and highly controversial DeFi protocol. As a "new" DeFi protocol launched in 2024, its peak TVL exceeded $2.6 billion, and it still has $1.785 billion in TVL.

With a trading volume of $16.591 billion over the past 30 days, Ethereum's mainnet trading volume accounts for 43.68% of Uniswap's total trading volume. This is a remarkable achievement.

Fluid combines lending with a DEX, accepting LPs (such as ETH/wBTC) as collateral, allowing LPs to still earn fees while providing collateral. Fluid calls this Smart Collateral.

Okay, it seems rather ordinary.

Image generated by Nano Banana Pro - Gemini AI based on the original text.

Smart Debt is a unique design feature of Fluid. Normally, in lending, users borrow money and pay interest.

In Fluid smart debt, users also borrow LP trading pairs.

That's right. If you want to borrow 1000 USDT, you will borrow 500 USDT + 500 USDC. The trading pair borrowed by the user will be automatically deposited into Fluid DEX as liquidity.

In other words, users can choose to withdraw the funds for other purposes, just like a regular loan, or they can choose to pledge LPs to borrow from LPs and then deposit them into the DEX to earn more transaction fees.

Essentially, smart debt encourages borrowers to leverage LPs within Fluid for revolving lending. This protocol increases liquidity, attracts more traders, and allows LPs to earn more transaction fees. This is precisely the flywheel that Fluid ultimately aims to build.

Therefore, if you have studied Fluid, you will see many articles describing Fluid as a "DEX-on-lending" protocol, and this is the reason.

The Fluid architecture is like a composite structure; you can think of it as a main road and auxiliary roads, a trunk and tributaries, a two-layer cake, or anything like that.

The core underlying component is the unified Liquidity Layer, a smart contract used to store the liquidity of all assets. It is responsible for managing all the money and handling deposits, withdrawals, loans, and repayments.

Above the liquidity layer are multiple sub-protocols and Vault. The sub-protocols have their own business logic, but they do not directly hold assets. Instead, they use the liquidity layer to manage the deposit and withdrawal of funds.

The various sub-protocols are interconnected through a liquidity layer. For example, assets deposited by a user through a lending sub-protocol can be lent out by other Vault sub-protocols;

Assets deposited through smart lending can be lent out by Vault and simultaneously provide trading liquidity for DEX sub-protocols.

Ordinary users only need to interact with the various sub-protocols to conduct deposit or loan operations, without having to directly access the liquidity layer.

Specific operating methods

Typical lending agreements:

Alice deposits: 100 ETH (single token) Bob lends out: 5000 USDC (single token)

Fluid method:

Usage 1: Ordinary Loans

Just like Aave and Compound, you deposit collateral and your wallet receives a loan, except that the loan is lent out by LPs, such as USDT + USC, and the loan can be used anywhere.

Use Case 2: Smart Debt

While both involve depositing collateral and lending to limited partners (LPs), the difference lies in the fact that the Fluid protocol directly injects this money into Fluid's DEX trading pool. Users earn transaction fees through debt, and the liquidity pool expands its liquidity through debt.

Then, users can revolve the loan. This means using LPs as collateral to borrow from other LPs, then collateralizing again to borrow more, and so on in a continuous cycle. The official documentation gives a theoretical maximum leverage of 39 times based on a 95% LTV (Loan-to-Value) calculation.

What are the trade-offs of Fluid?

Fluid attempts to unify lending and trading within a single liquidity layer. To achieve this unification, certain compromises must be made, and these compromises are precisely the root cause of additional losses suffered by limited partners (LPs) during volatile market conditions.

In Uniswap V3, when the market price exceeds the LP price range, users only temporarily lose to earn transaction fees, and their positions become 100% of a single asset (e.g., all converted to USDC). This is impermanent loss, and the loss may disappear once the price returns to its normal range.

Fluid rebalancing transforms "impermanent loss" into "permanent loss".

Fluid automatically adjusts the liquidity price range for certain Valuts in order to maintain high capital utilization or to maintain lending health (preventing liquidation).

For example,

Suppose the price of ETH drops from 3000 to 2800.

1) Uniswap V3 Manual LP: The LP price range is still 2900-3100. Therefore, you would currently hold 100% ETH. If you choose to remain inactive and the price returns to 3000, the LP will return to its initial state with no additional loss.

2) Fluid Automatic Rebalancing: In order to ensure active liquidity (or for risk control), the protocol will automatically perform "rebalancing" when it detects that the price has fallen below the range.

At the 2800 level, a portion of the LP's ETH must be sold and converted into USDC to regain liquidity in the new 2700-2900 range. The consequence is that this "sell" action is a real transaction, selling the tokens at a lower price.

If the ETH price subsequently rebounds quickly back to 3000, as mentioned before, Uniswap V3 user assets will remain unaffected, and the token pair allocation provided by LPs will return to its original state.

In order to recover the price, the Fluid protocol must rebalance when the price rises by buying back ETH with USDC.

However, because it was sold at a low price before, it is now being bought back at a high price. This is actually a case of "selling low and buying high," a type of operation that frequently occurs in volatile markets, and this type of loss is known as LVR (Loss-Versus-Rebalancing).

Why does Fluid need to be rebalanced?

Because LP trading pairs play a very important role in Fluid in order to connect lending and DEX using a unified liquidity layer, even the loans made through lending are trading pairs.

Therefore, Fluid had to introduce a concept – “Shares”.

In Uniswap V3, LPs are non-fungible, and withdrawals are made via NFTs. Your actions only affect yourself.

In order for liquidity to be usable by lending protocols (collateral and debt), Fluid must design its liquidity pools to be homogeneous. LPs do not hold specific "ETH in this price range," but rather "x% of the entire pool."

When the agreement triggers rebalancing and causes the aforementioned "buy low, sell high" attrition, the total net asset value of the entire pool decreases. Since LPs hold shares, the price of a share = total pool assets / total number of shares, and the share price will fall directly.

Therefore, unlike in Uniswap V3, LPs cannot choose "I will not participate in this adjustment and I will hold on to it"; in Fluid LPs, they are forced to participate in the rebalancing.

For another example,

Assume the price of ETH is 1000 USDC. Invest LP 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (total value $2000).

At this point, the price dropped, with ETH falling from 1000 to 800.

1. Uniswap V3 (Do not operate)

As prices fall, traders sell ETH, forcing LPs to buy it. This reduces USDC and increases ETH in the LP pool. Eventually, at the low of 800, the LP pool becomes 100% ETH (let's say approximately 2.2 ETH, with no USDC remaining).

The current LP holdings are worth 2.2 ETH, or 1760 USDT. Although they are at a paper loss, the LPs hold a large amount of ETH.

2. Fluid Forced Rebalancing

The same situation occurs. The price falls below the lower limit of the range set by Fluid. The protocol determines that the current range (900-1100) is invalid. In order for Vault to continue generating fees (or for lending health), the range must be moved to near the current price, such as 720-880.

The key issue is that establishing the new 720-880 range requires 50% ETH + 50% USDC. However, your current position is entirely in ETH. Therefore, a forced action is implemented: Fluid must sell half of your ETH at the 800 price level and convert it back to USDC.

Therefore, 1.1 ETH was sold for 880 USDC, which was then used to form a new LP with the remaining 1.1 ETH.

The current value is 1.1 ETH + 880 USDC = 1760. However, at this point, your ETH holdings have decreased from 2.2 to 1.1. In effect, Fluid forced you to "cut your losses" at this bottom.

At this point, the price rebounded, and the price of ETH rose from 800 back to 1000.

Uniswap V3 (Lie flat, no operation required)

As the price rebounded, the 2.2 ETH held were gradually bought up and converted back to USDC. The price returned to 1000, and the LP position reverted to 1 ETH + 1000 USDC (ignoring transaction fees).

Total value 2000 U, impermanent loss has disappeared.

Fluid Forced Rebalancing

Prices rebounded, and the new range of 720-880 became invalid again. It is necessary to rebalance and move the range back to 900-1100.

Currently, there are only 880 USDC and 1.1 ETH. If the price breaks through 880, the LPs will only have USDC, because the ETH has been bought. At this point, the LPs' positions are all in USDC, totaling 1760 USDC, which is the 880 USDC they initially held plus the amount they sold later.

The protocol rebalances when the ETH price reaches 1000, buying ETH with regular USDC to maintain a 50:50 ETH:USDC value.

At this point, the LP's position is 0.88 ETH and 880 USDC. The total value is 1760 USDC, a loss of 240 USDC compared to the initial total value of 2000 USDC.

Moreover, this 240 U is a permanent loss.

The subsequent Fluid DEX v2 upgrade addresses the pain point of permanent loss during rebalancing by transferring the wear and tear costs to arbitrageurs in a "smarter" way, thereby significantly reducing this permanent loss.

First, there is a dynamic fee mechanism. When prices fluctuate sharply, the transaction fee will increase accordingly to compensate for the rebalancing losses of LPs.

Secondly, a "buffer zone" is set up for the oracle; if it is just a brief insertion, no rebalancing will be performed.

Then, LPs are allowed to customize price ranges, with wider options available; rebalancing only occurs when prices exceed these ranges. Asymmetric LP positions are also permitted, meaning the token pair does not need to maintain a constant 50:50 ratio.

If that's the case, why does Fluid have a TVL of $1.785 billion and account for 43.68% of Uniswap's trading volume in the past 30 days?

Fluid masks or offsets permanent wear and tear through extreme capital efficiency and low-risk strategies for specific assets.

Wear and tear comes from frequent rebalancing caused by sharp price fluctuations. But what if, however, the prices between LP token pairs didn't fluctuate?

For stable pegged assets like USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, rebalancing wear is virtually zero. However, Fluid's mechanism allows for leverage of up to 39x on these assets.

Furthermore, the returns include both lending and DEX revenue.

Therefore, Fluid's focus is actually on stablecoins, ETH and its LST assets, and BTC-related liquid assets, as shown in the data below.

Source: https://dune.com/entropy_advisors/fluid-liquidity

Another point is that Fluid's liquidation mechanism differs from typical lending agreements, with liquidation penalties as low as 0.1%.

If a lending agreement like Aave needs to be liquidated, external MEV Bots can take the collateral at a discount to help with the liquidation.

This "discount" is the liquidation penalty, designed to prevent losses from margin calls. Aave's penalty is 5%.

A unified liquidity layer allows Fluid to eliminate the need for external clearing, instead completing clearing directly on its own DEX. The system automatically sells a portion of the collateral to repay the debt. Therefore, penalties can be as low as 0.1% plus slippage.

This is actually a favorable trade-off brought about by a unified liquidity layer, which also benefits high leverage.

Therefore, Fluid is very beneficial for revolving loans of stable asset LPs such as USDC/USDT or ETH/wstETH, and will also attract stablecoin investment whales and aggressive on-chain traders.

Can I buy $FLUID tokens?

To be honest, I'm not sure.

Currently, there is no necessary connection between protocol revenue and coin price, although the Instadapp community and team have repeatedly hinted at or discussed Fluid's revenue distribution issue.

However, the protocol revenue is not currently being distributed to token holders.

Summarize

Tradeoffs are an extremely important, even primary, consideration in blockchain project design. To achieve core features, certain necessary conditions must be met, and these conditions, in turn, constrain the project.

Fluid is a project with a prominent trade-off. It is believed that the project team designed it from the outset to build a unified liquidity layer, expanding liquidity through lending and DEX features. The stablecoin LP and ETH and its LPT token trading pairs are the best entry point for expanding liquidity through leveraged cyclical lending.

Market Opportunity
Instadapp Logo
Instadapp Price(FLUID)
$2.5773
$2.5773$2.5773
+0.38%
USD
Instadapp (FLUID) Live Price Chart
Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny

The post Shocking OpenVPP Partnership Claim Draws Urgent Scrutiny appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. The cryptocurrency world is buzzing with a recent controversy surrounding a bold OpenVPP partnership claim. This week, OpenVPP (OVPP) announced what it presented as a significant collaboration with the U.S. government in the innovative field of energy tokenization. However, this claim quickly drew the sharp eye of on-chain analyst ZachXBT, who highlighted a swift and official rebuttal that has sent ripples through the digital asset community. What Sparked the OpenVPP Partnership Claim Controversy? The core of the issue revolves around OpenVPP’s assertion of a U.S. government partnership. This kind of collaboration would typically be a monumental endorsement for any private cryptocurrency project, especially given the current regulatory climate. Such a partnership could signify a new era of mainstream adoption and legitimacy for energy tokenization initiatives. OpenVPP initially claimed cooperation with the U.S. government. This alleged partnership was said to be in the domain of energy tokenization. The announcement generated considerable interest and discussion online. ZachXBT, known for his diligent on-chain investigations, was quick to flag the development. He brought attention to the fact that U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Commissioner Hester Peirce had directly addressed the OpenVPP partnership claim. Her response, delivered within hours, was unequivocal and starkly contradicted OpenVPP’s narrative. How Did Regulatory Authorities Respond to the OpenVPP Partnership Claim? Commissioner Hester Peirce’s statement was a crucial turning point in this unfolding story. She clearly stated that the SEC, as an agency, does not engage in partnerships with private cryptocurrency projects. This response effectively dismantled the credibility of OpenVPP’s initial announcement regarding their supposed government collaboration. Peirce’s swift clarification underscores a fundamental principle of regulatory bodies: maintaining impartiality and avoiding endorsements of private entities. Her statement serves as a vital reminder to the crypto community about the official stance of government agencies concerning private ventures. Moreover, ZachXBT’s analysis…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 02:13
The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems

The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems

The gaming industry is in the midst of a historic shift, driven by the rise of Web3. Unlike traditional games, where developers and publishers control assets and dictate in-game economies, Web3 gaming empowers players with ownership and influence. Built on blockchain technology, these ecosystems are decentralized by design, enabling true digital asset ownership, transparent economies, and a future where players help shape the games they play. However, as Web3 gaming grows, security becomes a focal point. The range of security concerns, from hacking to asset theft to vulnerabilities in smart contracts, is a significant issue that will undermine or erode trust in this ecosystem, limiting or stopping adoption. Blockchain technology could be used to create security processes around secure, transparent, and fair Web3 gaming ecosystems. We will explore how security is increasing within gaming ecosystems, which challenges are being overcome, and what the future of security looks like. Why is Security Important in Web3 Gaming? Web3 gaming differs from traditional gaming in that players engage with both the game and assets with real value attached. Players own in-game assets that exist as tokens or NFTs (Non-Fungible Tokens), and can trade and sell them. These game assets usually represent significant financial value, meaning security failure could represent real monetary loss. In essence, without security, the promises of owning “something” in Web3, decentralized economies within games, and all that comes with the term “fair” gameplay can easily be eroded by fraud, hacking, and exploitation. This is precisely why the uniqueness of blockchain should be emphasized in securing Web3 gaming. How Blockchain Ensures Security in Web3 Gaming?
  1. Immutable Ownership of Assets Blockchain records can be manipulated by anyone. If a player owns a sword, skin, or plot of land as an NFT, it is verifiably in their ownership, and it cannot be altered or deleted by the developer or even hacked. This has created a proven track record of ownership, providing control back to the players, unlike any centralised gaming platform where assets can be revoked.
  2. Decentralized Infrastructure Blockchain networks also have a distributed architecture where game data is stored in a worldwide network of nodes, making them much less susceptible to centralised points of failure and attacks. This decentralised approach makes it exponentially more difficult to hijack systems or even shut off the game’s economy.
  3. Secure Transactions with Cryptography Whether a player buys an NFT or trades their in-game tokens for other items or tokens, the transactions are enforced by cryptographic algorithms, ensuring secure, verifiable, and irreversible transactions and eliminating the risks of double-spending or fraudulent trades.
  4. Smart Contract Automation Smart contracts automate the enforcement of game rules and players’ economic exchanges for the developer, eliminating the need for intermediaries or middlemen, and trust for the developer. For example, if a player completes a quest that promises a reward, the smart contract will execute and distribute what was promised.
  5. Anti-Cheating and Fair Gameplay The naturally transparent nature of blockchain makes it extremely simple for anyone to examine a specific instance of gameplay and verify the economic outcomes from that play. Furthermore, multi-player games that enforce smart contracts on things like loot sharing or win sharing can automate and measure trustlessness and avoid cheating, manipulations, and fraud by developers.
  6. Cross-Platform Security Many Web3 games feature asset interoperability across platforms. This interoperability is made viable by blockchain, which guarantees ownership is maintained whenever assets transition from one game or marketplace to another, thereby offering protection to players who rely on transfers for security against fraud. Key Security Dangers in Web3 Gaming Although blockchain provides sound first principles of security, the Web3 gaming ecosystem is susceptible to threats. Some of the most serious threats include:
Smart Contract Vulnerabilities: Smart contracts that are poorly written or lack auditing will leave openings for exploitation and thereby result in asset loss. Phishing Attacks: Unintentionally exposing or revealing private keys or signing transactions that are not possible to reverse, under the assumption they were genuine transaction requests. Bridge Hacks: Cross-chain bridges, which allow players to move their assets between their respective blockchains, continually face hacks, requiring vigilance from players and developers. Scams and Rug Pulls: Rug pulls occur when a game project raises money and leaves, leaving player assets worthless. Regulatory Ambiguity: Global regulations remain unclear; risks exist for players and developers alike. While blockchain alone won’t resolve every issue, it remediates the responsibility of the first principles, more so when joined by processes such as auditing, education, and the right governance, which can improve their contribution to the security landscapes in game ecosystems. Real Life Examples of Blockchain Security in Web3 Gaming Axie Infinity (Ronin Hack): The Axie Infinity game and several projects suffered one of the biggest hacks thus far on its Ronin bridge; however, it demonstrated the effectiveness of multi-sig security and the effective utilization of decentralization. The industry benefited through learning and reflection, thus, as projects have implemented changes to reduce the risks of future hacks or misappropriation. Immutable X: This Ethereum scaling solution aims to ensure secure NFT transactions for gaming, allowing players to trade an asset without the burden of exorbitant fees and fears of being a victim of fraud. Enjin: Enjin is providing a trusted infrastructure for Web3 games, offering secure NFT creation and transfer while reiterating that ownership and an asset securely belong to the player. These examples indubitably illustrate that despite challenges to overcome, blockchain remains the foundational layer on which to build more secure Web3 gaming environments. Benefits of Blockchain Security for Players and Developers For Players: Confidence in true ownership of assets Transparency in in-game economies Protection against nefarious trades/scams For Developers: More trust between players and the platform Less reliance on centralized infrastructure Ability to attract wealth and players based on provable fairness By incorporating blockchain security within the mechanics of game design, developers can create and enforce resilient ecosystems where players feel reassured in investing time, money, and ownership within virtual worlds. The Future of Secure Web3 Gaming Ecosystems As the wisdom of blockchain technology and industry knowledge improves, the future for secure Web3 gaming looks bright. New growing trends include: Zero-Knowledge Proofs (ZKPs): A new wave of protocols that enable private transactions and secure smart contracts while managing user privacy with an element of transparency. Decentralized Identity Solutions (DID): Helping players control their identities and decrease account theft risks. AI-Enhanced Security: Identifying irregularities in user interactions by sampling pattern anomalies to avert hacks and fraud by time-stamping critical events. Interoperable Security Standards: Allowing secured and seamless asset transfers across blockchains and games. With these innovations, blockchain will not only secure gaming assets but also enhance the overall trust and longevity of Web3 gaming ecosystems. Conclusion Blockchain is more than a buzzword in Web3; it is the only way to host security, fairness, and transparency. With blockchain, players confirm immutable ownership of digital assets, there is a decentralized infrastructure, and finally, it supports smart contracts to automate code that protects players and developers from the challenges of digital economies. The threats, vulnerabilities, and scams that come from smart contracts still persist, but the industry is maturing with better security practices, cross-chain solutions, and increased formal cryptographic tools. In the coming years, blockchain will remain the base to digital economies and drive Web3 gaming environments that allow players to safely own, trade, and enjoy their digital experiences free from fraud and exploitation. While blockchain and gaming alone entertain, we will usher in an era of secure digital worlds where trust complements innovation. The Role of Blockchain in Building Safer Web3 Gaming Ecosystems was originally published in Coinmonks on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story
Share
Medium2025/09/18 14:40
Morning Crypto Report: $3.6 XRP Dream Is Not Dead: Bollinger Bands, ‘New Cardano’ Rockets 40%, Vitalik Buterin Sells Binance Coin and Other Crypto Amid ‘Crypto Winter’

Morning Crypto Report: $3.6 XRP Dream Is Not Dead: Bollinger Bands, ‘New Cardano’ Rockets 40%, Vitalik Buterin Sells Binance Coin and Other Crypto Amid ‘Crypto Winter’

The post Morning Crypto Report: $3.6 XRP Dream Is Not Dead: Bollinger Bands, ‘New Cardano’ Rockets 40%, Vitalik Buterin Sells Binance Coin and Other Crypto Amid
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/12/21 22:15