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.
6,26 k
33
Le contenu de cette page est fourni par des tiers. Sauf indication contraire, OKX n’est pas l’auteur du ou des articles cités et ne revendique aucun droit d’auteur sur le contenu. Le contenu est fourni à titre d’information uniquement et ne représente pas les opinions d’OKX. Il ne s’agit pas d’une approbation de quelque nature que ce soit et ne doit pas être considéré comme un conseil en investissement ou une sollicitation d’achat ou de vente d’actifs numériques. Dans la mesure où l’IA générative est utilisée pour fournir des résumés ou d’autres informations, ce contenu généré par IA peut être inexact ou incohérent. Veuillez lire l’article associé pour obtenir davantage de détails et d’informations. OKX n’est pas responsable du contenu hébergé sur des sites tiers. La détention d’actifs numériques, y compris les stablecoins et les NFT, implique un niveau de risque élevé et leur valeur peut considérablement fluctuer. Examinez soigneusement votre situation financière pour déterminer si le trading ou la détention d’actifs numériques vous convient.