Author: thedefinvestor Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain Last week was a bad week for DeFi. It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week: Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million. Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy. Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack. Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation. So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance. This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler. In short, here's what happened: CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency. Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon." This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously. Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet. This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet. A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo. Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy. With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds. According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance! Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable. As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses. What can we learn from this? Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols. However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse. Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money. I have a few suggestions: Always verify the exact source of income. Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets. Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good. Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough. Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research. If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return. Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it. No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)? Don't put all your eggs in one basket. As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp. No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur. In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money. It's always better to be safe than to regret.Author: thedefinvestor Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain Last week was a bad week for DeFi. It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week: Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million. Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy. Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack. Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation. So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance. This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler. In short, here's what happened: CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency. Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon." This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously. Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet. This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet. A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo. Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy. With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds. According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance! Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable. As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses. What can we learn from this? Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols. However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse. Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money. I have a few suggestions: Always verify the exact source of income. Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets. Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good. Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough. Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research. If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return. Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it. No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)? Don't put all your eggs in one basket. As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp. No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur. In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money. It's always better to be safe than to regret.

What can we learn from the successive collapses of multiple DeFi projects?

2025/11/10 15:00
4 min read

Author: thedefinvestor

Compiled by: Plain Language Blockchain

Last week was a bad week for DeFi.

It wasn't just because of the market crash. Last week:

  • Balancer, a top DeFi protocol, was exploited, resulting in a loss of $128 million.
  • Stream Finance, a protocol that primarily generates yield through stablecoins, announced the loss of $93 million in user assets and is preparing to declare bankruptcy.
  • Moonwell lost $1 million in an attack.
  • Peapods' Pod LP TVL (Total Value Locked) dropped from $32 million to $0 due to liquidation.

So far, the most devastating loss has been to Stream Finance.

This is because it affects not only its depositors but also stablecoin lenders of some of the largest lending protocols in the space, including Morpho, Silo, and Euler.

In short, here's what happened:

  • CBB, a prominent figure on Crypto Twitter, has begun advising people to withdraw their investments from Stream due to its lack of transparency.

Stream is reportedly running a "DeFi market-neutral strategy," but its positions cannot be monitored, and its transparency page has been consistently listed as "coming soon."

  • This triggered a bank run, with a large number of users attempting to withdraw funds simultaneously.
  • Stream Finance has halted withdrawal processing after it recently suffered a massive loss of user funds ($92 million) and was unable to process all withdrawal requests. This caused the price of its xUSD (Stream's interest-bearing "stablecoin") to plummet.

This already sounds terrible, but the story isn't over yet.

A major problem is that xUSD is listed as collateral in currency markets such as Euler, Morpho, and Silo.

Worse still, Stream has been using its so-called stablecoin xUSD as collateral to borrow funds from the money market to execute its yield strategy.

With the xUSD price now crashing, many lenders who lent USDC/USDT to xUSD collateral on Euler, Morpho, and Silo are no longer able to withdraw their funds.

According to the DeFi User Alliance (YAM), at least $284 million in DeFi debt across various money markets is tied to Stream Finance!

Unfortunately, a large portion of this money may be unrecoverable.

As a result, many stablecoin lenders suffered heavy losses.

What can we learn from this?

Over the past two to three years, I have been personally deeply involved in the farming of DeFi protocols.

However, following the recent events, I plan to re-evaluate my DeFi portfolio positions and become more risk-averse.

Yield farming can be very profitable. I've made some substantial profits from it over the past few years, but events like this can cause you to lose a significant amount of money.

I have a few suggestions:

  • Always verify the exact source of income.

Stream isn't the only DeFi protocol claiming to generate yield through a "market-neutral strategy." Be sure to look for transparency dashboards or proof-of-reserve reports, where you can clearly see that the team isn't gambling with your assets.

Don't blindly trust a protocol just because the team behind it seems good.

  • Consider whether the risk-reward ratio is good enough.

Some stablecoin protocols offer an annualized return (APR) of 5-7%. Others may offer over 10%. My advice is not to blindly deposit funds into protocols offering the highest yields without doing proper research.

If the strategy is not transparent, or the process of generating returns seems too risky, then it is not worth risking your money for a double-digit annual return.

Or if the returns are too low (e.g., an annualized rate of 4-5%), ask yourself if it's worth it.

No smart contract is risk-free; we've even seen established applications like Balancer attacked. Is it worth risking everything for a low annualized return (APY)?

  • Don't put all your eggs in one basket.

As a general rule, I never deposit more than 10% of my portfolio into a single dApp.

No matter how tempting the returns or airdrop opportunities may seem, the impact on my finances should a hack occur.

In short, when building your investment portfolio, prioritize survival over making money.

It's always better to be safe than to regret.

Market Opportunity
Brainedge Logo
Brainedge Price(LEARN)
$0.005388
$0.005388$0.005388
+11.85%
USD
Brainedge (LEARN) 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

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now?

The post Is Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX) a strong mutual fund pick right now? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On the lookout for a Sector – Tech fund? Starting with Putnam Global Technology A (PGTAX – Free Report) should not be a possibility at this time. PGTAX possesses a Zacks Mutual Fund Rank of 4 (Sell), which is based on various forecasting factors like size, cost, and past performance. Objective We note that PGTAX is a Sector – Tech option, and this area is loaded with many options. Found in a wide number of industries such as semiconductors, software, internet, and networking, tech companies are everywhere. Thus, Sector – Tech mutual funds that invest in technology let investors own a stake in a notoriously volatile sector, but with a much more diversified approach. History of fund/manager Putnam Funds is based in Canton, MA, and is the manager of PGTAX. The Putnam Global Technology A made its debut in January of 2009 and PGTAX has managed to accumulate roughly $650.01 million in assets, as of the most recently available information. The fund is currently managed by Di Yao who has been in charge of the fund since December of 2012. Performance Obviously, what investors are looking for in these funds is strong performance relative to their peers. PGTAX has a 5-year annualized total return of 14.46%, and is in the middle third among its category peers. But if you are looking for a shorter time frame, it is also worth looking at its 3-year annualized total return of 27.02%, which places it in the middle third during this time-frame. It is important to note that the product’s returns may not reflect all its expenses. Any fees not reflected would lower the returns. Total returns do not reflect the fund’s [%] sale charge. If sales charges were included, total returns would have been lower. When looking at a fund’s performance, it…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/18 04:05
“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

“Vibes Should Match Substance”: Vitalik on Fake Ethereum Connections

Vitalik Buterin criticized L2s that use optimistic bridges without adding meaningful technical innovation. Ethereum’s base layer is scaling, reducing the need for
Share
LiveBitcoinNews2026/02/06 11:30
Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Why Bitcoin Crashed Below $69,000 — Causes & Outlook

Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions Cryptsy - Latest Cryptocurrency News and Predictions - Experts in Crypto Casinos Bitcoin crash explained:
Share
Cryptsy2026/02/06 11:20