2025-12-26 09:20:10

The stablecoin USX in the Solstice ecosystem recently experienced price fluctuations, but the project team clarified that the fundamentals remain solid. According to official data, the underlying net asset value (NAV) and custodial assets on the Solstice sidechain have not been affected, with the collateralization ratio maintained above the safe threshold of 100%. The team emphasized that this price fluctuation is solely due to short-term liquidity shortages in the secondary market, and the 1:1 redemption channel in the primary market has always remained open. This means that holders can lock in their value basis through the redemption mechanism.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

9 Likes

Reward
9
6
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

OnChainSleuth

· 6h ago

Here comes another rumor debunking—does a lack of liquidity always lead to a drop? I feel like I've heard this explanation too many times already. --- Is the 1:1 redemption channel really always smooth? I haven't seen anyone lining up to redeem. --- What does it mean to have a collateralization ratio above 100%? It sounds strange. --- Lack of liquidity in the secondary market ≠ good fundamentals. That logic is a bit far-fetched, everyone. --- NAV is fine, but if the price keeps falling, doesn't that mean the market lacks trust? --- Wait, can we trust official data? On-chain data is the real proof. --- The redemption mechanism is so effective—why are there still people holding positions? Seems suspicious. --- No matter how you put it, it can't change the fact that it's falling.

View OriginalReply0

TradFiRefugee

· 6h ago

Liquidity shortage is just a liquidity shortage. No matter how nicely you phrase it, it's just that no one wants it in the secondary market.

View OriginalReply0

WalletInspector

· 6h ago

Is it really confident to say the fundamentals are stable when liquidity is insufficient? I've heard this excuse too many times. --- 1:1 redemption does have some merit, but still arguing when the secondary market has fallen so much. --- It's the classic "underlying net asset value is fine" again. --- Is the redemption channel smooth? Then why are they still dumping? --- Collateralization ratio over 100%, sounds good but somehow I always feel there's a catch. --- Wait, are they trying to whitewash the previous sharp decline? --- It's rare to see the project team so eager to speak out, which shows they are indeed panicking.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainArchaeologist

· 6h ago

It's the same old story, NAV is stable, collateralization ratio is safe... I've heard it too many times. "Smooth redemption channels" sounds good, but the key question is, does anyone actually redeem? The price has fallen so much, and it's still a stablecoin—laughable. Lack of liquidity basically means no one is buying. Why hide it? Let's wait and see how these projects usually end up. It's an old project, yet they keep emphasizing the collateralization ratio—probably feeling guilty. Insufficient liquidity in the secondary market? That’s a risk signal, my friend.

View OriginalReply0

WhaleShadow

· 6h ago

The secondary market is still playing out, and the 1:1 redemption is still there... The key question is whether anyone is actually using it.

View OriginalReply0

LoneValidator