1/ Another week, another stablecoin depeg.
This time it’s @yalaorg’s $YU, a BTC-backed CDP stablecoin.
2/ $YU was exploited in September, when an attacker gained unauthorized minting access due to a bridge mis-implementation. The attacker minted roughly 30M $YU and dumped about 7.7M of it for 1,635 ETH, and later moved this through Tornado Cash.
3/ The stablecoin depegged during the incident. However, reassurances from the team, including a promise to uphold a 1:1 redemption rate and burn all excess $YU in circulation, restored liquidity and helped the market support a recovery.
4/ This recent depeg can be traced directly to September’s exploit.
@yieldsandmore and other onchain sleuths spotted how wallet 0x819(…)1e9c, an address described as “deep into Yala” was leveraging their Yala-related holdings and its PTs to borrow as much USDC as possible through Euler’s Frontier YALA markets, pushing utilization at 100% and rates to high double digits %.
5/ This raised suspicions about the actual backing of the stablecoin.
If YU was 100% backed, why keep these positions open and pay such high interest rates?
Why drain available liquidity across both EVM chains and Solana, especially in a month already so rich in stablecoin crises?
6/ Also note that $YU is now trading at $0.95 on Solana, with only 4 USDC left in the main liquidity pool, and $0.68 on Ethereum.
Despite this, the leveraged positions on Euler are not at risk of liquidation, due to the usage of hard-coded 1:1 oracles.
7/ Today’s events once again stress a principle that has been at the core of crypto since day 1.
Don’t trust, verify.
Yala features a transparency tab on its website, which, however, provides little utility aside from showcasing a few headline numbers: a 175.34% collateralization ratio and $0.0801 in USDC reserves, without even any third-party attestation or breakdown of the reserves.
8/ While we wait for the Yala team to address this recent event, we can already draw some conclusions.
What’s really broken here isn’t just limited to YU; it’s the broader habit of asking users to take “fully collateralized” on faith while transparency solutions like Proof of Reserves exist.
9/ With a PoR, users won’t need to rely on a Twitter thread or Discord message when a team pledges 1:1 backing, and they also don’t have to wonder if some “deep” insider wallet is quietly eating through the last pockets of real liquidity.
They can verify all of this in real time.
PoR cannot stop exploits or bad risk decisions… but it makes both visible and, with this, verifiable facts rather than team assurances, enforce the peg.
6,3k
33
Innholdet på denne siden er levert av tredjeparter. Med mindre annet er oppgitt, er ikke OKX forfatteren av de siterte artikkelen(e) og krever ingen opphavsrett til materialet. Innholdet er kun gitt for informasjonsformål og representerer ikke synspunktene til OKX. Det er ikke ment å være en anbefaling av noe slag og bør ikke betraktes som investeringsråd eller en oppfordring om å kjøpe eller selge digitale aktiva. I den grad generativ AI brukes til å gi sammendrag eller annen informasjon, kan slikt AI-generert innhold være unøyaktig eller inkonsekvent. Vennligst les den koblede artikkelen for mer detaljer og informasjon. OKX er ikke ansvarlig for innhold som er vert på tredjeparts nettsteder. Beholdning av digitale aktiva, inkludert stablecoins og NFT-er, innebærer en høy grad av risiko og kan svinge mye. Du bør nøye vurdere om handel eller innehav av digitale aktiva passer for deg i lys av din økonomiske tilstand.