2026-01-19 19:27:19

The concept of "Negative Yield Agriculture" sounds contradictory, but the key lies in whether the mechanism design can truly be implemented. Taking a certain leading DeFi platform as an example, their multi-layered points model actually achieves this — holder points, market maker points, and trader points can be stacked and operate together without being completely eroded by fees.

The operational logic here is as follows: Regarding holder points, DUSD accumulates rewards based on a 7-day snapshot cycle, which means that even if your assets are idle, you can still earn stable returns. In other words, the entire points system does not rely on frequent interactions to maintain yields but instead allows different roles to generate value on their respective tracks. This design avoids the "mining to bankruptcy" scenario common in traditional liquidity mining — fee consumption will not eat into your returns.

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.

7 Likes

Reward
7
8
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

BlindBoxVictim

· 12h ago

Making easy money without gas fees, I have to admit, this logic is impressive. Finally, someone has turned the liquidity mining scheme of harvesting profits into a reverse play.

View OriginalReply0

CommunityWorker

· 01-19 19:57

Wow, this design is indeed quite impressive. Finally seeing a mechanism that isn't just about cutting the leeks. --- Wait, a 7-day snapshot? Will I suffer losses if I operate frequently? --- Basically, the fees won't eat into the returns, which is quite rare. --- Multi-layer point stacking... sounds great, but I'm worried it might not run smoothly in practice. --- Feels much more reliable than those projects that went bankrupt before. --- The key is how long this platform can last; don't let it fade away in the end. --- Idle assets can still earn? I need to research this DUSD. --- The point system doesn't consume interaction fees, which is a fresh idea. --- But in the end, the token economics will probably level out, so it's a bit uncertain. --- Finally, someone explained negative returns clearly. Learned something new.

View OriginalReply0

GweiWatcher

· 01-19 19:52

This design sounds good, but whether it actually works depends on market testing. Stable returns always sound the most deceptive; I still want to see real annualized figures. Not relying on frequent interactions? Then how to ensure liquidity? Feels like there's a trap somewhere. I need to think about this logic again; it feels like another trick of left hand giving to the right hand. Is DUSD stable? I'm worried it might be another fantasy coin that returns to zero. Multi-layer models sound good, but in the end, it still depends on new users entering to sustain it. Idle assets can also earn? Then big players are just lying back and winning, while small investors get cut. Running things practically and theoretically perfectly are two different things. How long has this platform been operational? It sounds good, but where do the fee expenses actually go? Maybe they all just go into the treasury.

View OriginalReply0

SerNgmi

· 01-19 19:51

Wait, so idle assets can also generate stable returns? That sounds a bit too good to be true. Can we really avoid the fee black hole this time?

View OriginalReply0

ContractCollector

· 01-19 19:47

Damn, finally someone explains this logic clearly. Previously, watching those projects was all talk and no action. The stacking of these three dimensions is truly different; it's not just a simple APY number game. Can idle assets also earn? The 7-day snapshot design is pretty good, saving the hassle of manual compounding every day. The traditional mining approach is indeed just cutting leeks; once the fees are taken, there's no profit left. The key to this thing still depends on the actual execution—don't let it be another PPT project. Why does it seem like some people always manage to complicate simple things, or vice versa... The mechanism design of DUSD is indeed a bit interesting.

View OriginalReply0

LiquidityWitch

· 01-19 19:43

Lazy farming? Doing it this way is indeed interesting, but it depends on how long it can last. --- Three-dimensional stacking sounds like a land of destiny, but is the cost really too high to afford the points? I remain skeptical. --- I want to try the DUSD snapshot yield; anyway, I have free time. --- Not needing frequent interactions is the way to go. At last, someone understands. --- Avoid mining until bankruptcy? Uh... most projects still explode in the end. --- Multi-layer models sound complicated, but the key is whether they can actually run smoothly. --- Stable returns should be used cautiously in the crypto world; such things don't really exist. --- For the three dimensions not to cannibalize each other, what kind of mechanism is needed? --- Wait, isn't this just liquidity mining with a different name? --- 7-day snapshot cycle, anyway, it's more reliable than daily settlements. --- Negative yield farming... who is the translation officer? Can you make this name sound more magical? --- It seems quite idealistic, but on-chain data will tell the truth.

View OriginalReply0

HashRatePhilosopher

· 01-19 19:39

Well, this logic does hold up, but I'm worried that the mechanism might collapse if things sound too good to be true. May I ask, does this 7-day snapshot cycle imply that liquidity is actually locked?

View OriginalReply0

ForkInTheRoad

· 01-19 19:28

Huh, is this logic really true, or is it just another hype-up tactic?

View OriginalReply0