Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher Before the market could recover from the aftershocks of October 11, the DeFi domino effect began to unfold once again. According to Stablewatch data, yield-generating stablecoins experienced the most dramatic outflow of funds since the Terra UST crash in 2022, totaling $1 billion. Stream Finance's xUSD saw a separate outflow of $411 million, becoming the trigger. This wasn't an isolated incident; this chain reaction of liquidations tore apart the fragile structure of the DeFi Lego stack. Extreme negative returns occurred when the value of collateral plummeted and utilization was close to 100%. The crisis was sparked on November 3rd when Stream Finance suddenly announced that an external fund manager had lost $93 million in trading, immediately freezing all deposit and withdrawal functions. The price of xUSD plummeted from $1 to $0.43, wiping out over $500 million in market capitalization, and it is currently struggling around $0.11. The chain reaction was immediate, with Elixir's deUSD bearing the brunt. As a lending partner of Stream, it held a large amount of xUSD as collateral, resulting in a 65% loss in value, approximately 68 million USDC. Meanwhile, the utilization rate of hidden markets on lending platforms Morpho and Euler surged to 95% to 100%, with lending rates reaching an abnormal low of -752%, indicating that collateral had become dead debt. Compound urgently shut down some markets, and protocols such as Silo and Treeve's scUSD also decoupled from the market. Today, Elixir officially announced on Twitter that the stablecoin deUSD has been retired and no longer has any value. The platform will initiate a USDC compensation process for all holders of deUSD and its derivatives (such as sdeUSD). This includes lenders who hold collateral, AMM LPs, and Pendle LPs. Elixir also warned users not to purchase or invest in deUSD through AMMs or similar channels. This marks the first time in DeFi history that a protocol has proactively announced the "euthanasia" of a stablecoin. While it preserved the principal of holders, it completely ended the deUSD ecosystem. Elixir emphasized that the compensation funds came from the protocol's reserves and assets recovered through Stream, but did not disclose a specific timeline or audit details. The market interprets this as a "cut-the-tails" move by the protocol to avoid legal risks. The root cause of Stream xUSD unanchoring on October 11th To understand the root cause of this storm, we must trace back to the liquidation event on October 11th. A deep dive into Trading Strategy on X on November 5th pointed out that the fundamental reason for Stream's xUSD de-pegging was not the Balancer hack, but rather the failure of its Delta-neutral strategy during the historic liquidation on the 11th. Although Stream claimed to use a Delta-neutral hedging strategy (a 1:1 allocation between spot and short positions), the exchange's automatic position reduction (ADL) system forcibly liquidated its positions during the extreme volatility of October 11th, disrupting the original hedging balance. This resulted in a direct loss of Stream's principal, thus triggering the xUSD de-pegging. The underlying problems include: a severe lack of transparency (only $150 million/$500 million TVL are visible on-chain), high-risk off-chain trading strategies (including volatility selling strategies), and excessive leverage (recursive lending via Elixir). The analysis also points out that Stream is just the first batch of victims to surface, and given the unprecedented extreme liquidation event on October 11th, "more DeFi projects are expected to collapse for similar reasons." Unexpectedly, in just a few days, various DeFi protocols have exploded one after another like dominoes. The outflow of billions of dollars from stablecoins is a major warning to the market. According to @cmdefi's analysis, DeFi falls into two models: unified protocol governance and permissionless independent lending. The former, such as AAVE and Spark, requires governance voting for asset listing, with the platform providing a safety net; the latter, such as Morpho and Euler, has each marketplace independently managed by Curator, often comprised of project teams or stakeholders. Curator's risk lies in its self-established pools, which can list various assets without any platform endorsement responsibility. "Issues like xUSD, or problems with the underlying structure of some stablecoin projects, can lead to utilization rates soaring to 95% to 100%, with investors defaulting on payments despite extremely high interest rates. This is because the collateral has become worthless, making it impossible to redeem the assets, and even the highest interest rates are just numbers." In addition, Mr. Block pointed out that this week's DeFi events remind users that although the name "isolated lending markets" implies that the risk is limited to a certain pool/market, in reality, it may still be exposed to the risks of other assets due to cross-dependency, cascading infection, curator, borrower and structural issues. If the Stream Finance collapse was a lesson, then the outflow of billions of dollars in stablecoin funds is definitely a warning to the market. In DeFi, any risk can spread down five or six layers, and even be transmitted across protocols and chains. Furthermore, not all DeFi protocols have their asset allocations visible on the blockchain. The domino effect of DeFi events may not be over yet, and for users, risk control is absolutely the top priority.Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher Before the market could recover from the aftershocks of October 11, the DeFi domino effect began to unfold once again. According to Stablewatch data, yield-generating stablecoins experienced the most dramatic outflow of funds since the Terra UST crash in 2022, totaling $1 billion. Stream Finance's xUSD saw a separate outflow of $411 million, becoming the trigger. This wasn't an isolated incident; this chain reaction of liquidations tore apart the fragile structure of the DeFi Lego stack. Extreme negative returns occurred when the value of collateral plummeted and utilization was close to 100%. The crisis was sparked on November 3rd when Stream Finance suddenly announced that an external fund manager had lost $93 million in trading, immediately freezing all deposit and withdrawal functions. The price of xUSD plummeted from $1 to $0.43, wiping out over $500 million in market capitalization, and it is currently struggling around $0.11. The chain reaction was immediate, with Elixir's deUSD bearing the brunt. As a lending partner of Stream, it held a large amount of xUSD as collateral, resulting in a 65% loss in value, approximately 68 million USDC. Meanwhile, the utilization rate of hidden markets on lending platforms Morpho and Euler surged to 95% to 100%, with lending rates reaching an abnormal low of -752%, indicating that collateral had become dead debt. Compound urgently shut down some markets, and protocols such as Silo and Treeve's scUSD also decoupled from the market. Today, Elixir officially announced on Twitter that the stablecoin deUSD has been retired and no longer has any value. The platform will initiate a USDC compensation process for all holders of deUSD and its derivatives (such as sdeUSD). This includes lenders who hold collateral, AMM LPs, and Pendle LPs. Elixir also warned users not to purchase or invest in deUSD through AMMs or similar channels. This marks the first time in DeFi history that a protocol has proactively announced the "euthanasia" of a stablecoin. While it preserved the principal of holders, it completely ended the deUSD ecosystem. Elixir emphasized that the compensation funds came from the protocol's reserves and assets recovered through Stream, but did not disclose a specific timeline or audit details. The market interprets this as a "cut-the-tails" move by the protocol to avoid legal risks. The root cause of Stream xUSD unanchoring on October 11th To understand the root cause of this storm, we must trace back to the liquidation event on October 11th. A deep dive into Trading Strategy on X on November 5th pointed out that the fundamental reason for Stream's xUSD de-pegging was not the Balancer hack, but rather the failure of its Delta-neutral strategy during the historic liquidation on the 11th. Although Stream claimed to use a Delta-neutral hedging strategy (a 1:1 allocation between spot and short positions), the exchange's automatic position reduction (ADL) system forcibly liquidated its positions during the extreme volatility of October 11th, disrupting the original hedging balance. This resulted in a direct loss of Stream's principal, thus triggering the xUSD de-pegging. The underlying problems include: a severe lack of transparency (only $150 million/$500 million TVL are visible on-chain), high-risk off-chain trading strategies (including volatility selling strategies), and excessive leverage (recursive lending via Elixir). The analysis also points out that Stream is just the first batch of victims to surface, and given the unprecedented extreme liquidation event on October 11th, "more DeFi projects are expected to collapse for similar reasons." Unexpectedly, in just a few days, various DeFi protocols have exploded one after another like dominoes. The outflow of billions of dollars from stablecoins is a major warning to the market. According to @cmdefi's analysis, DeFi falls into two models: unified protocol governance and permissionless independent lending. The former, such as AAVE and Spark, requires governance voting for asset listing, with the platform providing a safety net; the latter, such as Morpho and Euler, has each marketplace independently managed by Curator, often comprised of project teams or stakeholders. Curator's risk lies in its self-established pools, which can list various assets without any platform endorsement responsibility. "Issues like xUSD, or problems with the underlying structure of some stablecoin projects, can lead to utilization rates soaring to 95% to 100%, with investors defaulting on payments despite extremely high interest rates. This is because the collateral has become worthless, making it impossible to redeem the assets, and even the highest interest rates are just numbers." In addition, Mr. Block pointed out that this week's DeFi events remind users that although the name "isolated lending markets" implies that the risk is limited to a certain pool/market, in reality, it may still be exposed to the risks of other assets due to cross-dependency, cascading infection, curator, borrower and structural issues. If the Stream Finance collapse was a lesson, then the outflow of billions of dollars in stablecoin funds is definitely a warning to the market. In DeFi, any risk can spread down five or six layers, and even be transmitted across protocols and chains. Furthermore, not all DeFi protocols have their asset allocations visible on the blockchain. The domino effect of DeFi events may not be over yet, and for users, risk control is absolutely the top priority.

$1 billion outflow from stablecoins: A detailed look at the truth behind the DeFi collapse.

2025/11/10 08:30

Author: Chloe, ChainCatcher

Before the market could recover from the aftershocks of October 11, the DeFi domino effect began to unfold once again.

According to Stablewatch data, yield-generating stablecoins experienced the most dramatic outflow of funds since the Terra UST crash in 2022, totaling $1 billion. Stream Finance's xUSD saw a separate outflow of $411 million, becoming the trigger. This wasn't an isolated incident; this chain reaction of liquidations tore apart the fragile structure of the DeFi Lego stack.

Extreme negative returns occurred when the value of collateral plummeted and utilization was close to 100%.

The crisis was sparked on November 3rd when Stream Finance suddenly announced that an external fund manager had lost $93 million in trading, immediately freezing all deposit and withdrawal functions. The price of xUSD plummeted from $1 to $0.43, wiping out over $500 million in market capitalization, and it is currently struggling around $0.11. The chain reaction was immediate, with Elixir's deUSD bearing the brunt. As a lending partner of Stream, it held a large amount of xUSD as collateral, resulting in a 65% loss in value, approximately 68 million USDC.

Meanwhile, the utilization rate of hidden markets on lending platforms Morpho and Euler surged to 95% to 100%, with lending rates reaching an abnormal low of -752%, indicating that collateral had become dead debt. Compound urgently shut down some markets, and protocols such as Silo and Treeve's scUSD also decoupled from the market.

Today, Elixir officially announced on Twitter that the stablecoin deUSD has been retired and no longer has any value. The platform will initiate a USDC compensation process for all holders of deUSD and its derivatives (such as sdeUSD). This includes lenders who hold collateral, AMM LPs, and Pendle LPs. Elixir also warned users not to purchase or invest in deUSD through AMMs or similar channels.

This marks the first time in DeFi history that a protocol has proactively announced the "euthanasia" of a stablecoin. While it preserved the principal of holders, it completely ended the deUSD ecosystem. Elixir emphasized that the compensation funds came from the protocol's reserves and assets recovered through Stream, but did not disclose a specific timeline or audit details. The market interprets this as a "cut-the-tails" move by the protocol to avoid legal risks.

The root cause of Stream xUSD unanchoring on October 11th

To understand the root cause of this storm, we must trace back to the liquidation event on October 11th. A deep dive into Trading Strategy on X on November 5th pointed out that the fundamental reason for Stream's xUSD de-pegging was not the Balancer hack, but rather the failure of its Delta-neutral strategy during the historic liquidation on the 11th. Although Stream claimed to use a Delta-neutral hedging strategy (a 1:1 allocation between spot and short positions), the exchange's automatic position reduction (ADL) system forcibly liquidated its positions during the extreme volatility of October 11th, disrupting the original hedging balance. This resulted in a direct loss of Stream's principal, thus triggering the xUSD de-pegging.

The underlying problems include: a severe lack of transparency (only $150 million/$500 million TVL are visible on-chain), high-risk off-chain trading strategies (including volatility selling strategies), and excessive leverage (recursive lending via Elixir). The analysis also points out that Stream is just the first batch of victims to surface, and given the unprecedented extreme liquidation event on October 11th, "more DeFi projects are expected to collapse for similar reasons." Unexpectedly, in just a few days, various DeFi protocols have exploded one after another like dominoes.

The outflow of billions of dollars from stablecoins is a major warning to the market.

According to @cmdefi's analysis, DeFi falls into two models: unified protocol governance and permissionless independent lending. The former, such as AAVE and Spark, requires governance voting for asset listing, with the platform providing a safety net; the latter, such as Morpho and Euler, has each marketplace independently managed by Curator, often comprised of project teams or stakeholders.

Curator's risk lies in its self-established pools, which can list various assets without any platform endorsement responsibility. "Issues like xUSD, or problems with the underlying structure of some stablecoin projects, can lead to utilization rates soaring to 95% to 100%, with investors defaulting on payments despite extremely high interest rates. This is because the collateral has become worthless, making it impossible to redeem the assets, and even the highest interest rates are just numbers."

In addition, Mr. Block pointed out that this week's DeFi events remind users that although the name "isolated lending markets" implies that the risk is limited to a certain pool/market, in reality, it may still be exposed to the risks of other assets due to cross-dependency, cascading infection, curator, borrower and structural issues.

If the Stream Finance collapse was a lesson, then the outflow of billions of dollars in stablecoin funds is definitely a warning to the market. In DeFi, any risk can spread down five or six layers, and even be transmitted across protocols and chains.

Furthermore, not all DeFi protocols have their asset allocations visible on the blockchain. The domino effect of DeFi events may not be over yet, and for users, risk control is absolutely the top priority.

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

Solana Treasury Stocks: Why Are These Companies Buying Up SOL?

Solana Treasury Stocks: Why Are These Companies Buying Up SOL?

The post Solana Treasury Stocks: Why Are These Companies Buying Up SOL? appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. In 2020, everyone watched Strategy (called Microstrategy back then) scoop up Bitcoin and turn corporate crypto treasuries into a mainstream story. Now, a new wave is forming. And it’s centered on Solana. Dozens of companies are holding SOL as a bet on price. Except they’re not just holding. They’re building what’s being called Solana treasuries or Digital Asset Treasuries (DATs). These aren’t passive vaults. They’re active strategies that stake, earn yield, and tie into the fast-growing Solana ecosystem. Forward Industries, a Nasdaq-listed firm, recently bought more than 6.8 million SOL, making it the world’s largest Solana treasury company. Others like Helius Medical, Upexi, and DeFi Development are following a similar playbook, turning SOL into a centerpiece of their balance sheets. The trend is clear: Solana treasury stocks are emerging as a new class of crypto-exposed equities. And for investors, the question isn’t just who’s buying but why this strategy is spreading so fast. Key highlights: Solana treasuries (DATs) are corporate reserves of SOL designed to earn yield through staking and DeFi. Companies like Forward Industries, Helius Medical, Upexi, and DeFi Development Corp now hold millions of SOL. Public firms collectively own 17.1M SOL (≈$4B), which makes Solana one of the most adopted treasuries. Unlike Bitcoin treasuries, Solana holdings generate 6–8% annual rewards. It makes reserves into productive assets Solana treasury stocks are emerging as a new way for investors to gain indirect exposure to SOL. Risks remain: volatility, regulation, and concentrated holdings. But corporate adoption is growing fast. What is a Solana treasury (DAT)? A Solana treasury, sometimes called a Digital Asset Treasury (DAT), is when a company holds SOL as part of its balance sheet. But unlike Bitcoin treasuries, these usually aren’t just static reserves sitting in cold storage.  The key difference is productivity. SOL can be staked directly…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/21 06:09
China’s EV insurance market bleeds billions as claims surge

China’s EV insurance market bleeds billions as claims surge

The post China’s EV insurance market bleeds billions as claims surge appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. China’s once-booming electric vehicle (EV) insurance business is fast becoming a money-losing sector. Claims are growing faster than expected, and insurers are losing billions of yuan annually. The issue is that EV adoption in the country has outpaced insurers’ antiquated tools to price risk. As a result, one of the world’s most advanced EV markets has become a battleground for insurers. China has the world’s largest number of EVs on the road. More than 20 million new energy vehicles (NEVs), including pure electric cars and plug-in hybrids, are registered nationwide. And sales continue to soar, with EVs now outselling gasoline cars in several cities. Yet behind the surge, insurance statistics paint a chilling reality. Owners of electric vehicles, many younger than motorists who pilot traditional internal combustion, are roughly twice as likely to file claims on their policies. Their vehicles are also much pricier to repair. Batteries account for roughly a third of a car’s value and are most at risk. These units are mounted under the floor and can more easily be damaged by speed bumps or road detritus. And new ones aren’t cheap; sometimes, replacing one is more than it would cost to repair the entire rest of the car combined. Specialized components like sensors and chips have become more expensive and difficult to find. And often repairs can only be made by authorized service centers, many at Tesla-certified body shops, where costs are all too expensive. In China, insurers lost 5.7 billion yuan ($802 million) on underwriting EV policies in 2024 alone, according to the China Association of Actuaries. Total premium income was almost 141 billion yuan, but claims and repair costs outweighed profits. Qin Lu, the chief executive officer of Greater China at Aon Plc, said insurers could not fully distinguish between car brands, models, and…
Share
BitcoinEthereumNews2025/09/22 14:21