Seeing everyone talk about Pendle's YT/PT dual holding, I’ll briefly share my thoughts. Conclusion: Pendle is indeed a powerful tool for increasing TVL. YT/PT is a method used by the project team to incentivize TVL growth, and dual holding is an arbitrage opportunity created by this incentive, but it has little impact on the final outcome. In the past, traditional staking involved locking assets to earn TGE returns. With the emergence of Pendle, returns are split into PT (stable) and YT (speculative on TGE). Large funds buy PT, which lowers APY; as APY decreases, speculators buy YT to raise returns; the increase in APY then attracts more people to buy PT, and TVL rolls up like this. Essentially, it transforms "divergence" into a tradable market, creating TVL from scratch. Because YT can boost TVL, project teams usually provide more incentives for YT. This creates an arbitrage opportunity: single holding of tokens gives 20 points, while dual holding PT+YT gives 40 points (Pendle takes 5%), but the risks are almost the same. In a rational market, a large amount of the native currency will naturally flow into Pendle's dual holding, leading to the incentives being "flattened." This is not what the project team hopes for, as the intention is to encourage speculation on YT, raise APY, and attract large funds to buy PT, thereby increasing TVL. However, the impact of this arbitrage is limited; the worst outcome is that everyone ends up dual holding, and points are rebalanced. PT staking + circular lending is different from dual holding; this is real capital inflow (for example, using USDT to buy the native currency and then doing circular lending), which indeed brings new TVL, and the project team should actually support this. In summary: PT/YT dual holding is arbitrage, but it won't harm Pendle's growth logic. As long as there is divergence in the market regarding APY, Pendle's TVL magic will continue.