Waseem Ahmad mir

Falcon Finance didn’t arrive with much noise, but by late 2025 it has become one of the more serious attempts to rethink how stable liquidity works in DeFi. Backed by DWF Labs and founded by Andrei Grachev, the protocol is built around a simple idea: most capital on-chain is underused, and stablecoins don’t need to rely on narrow collateral sets to stay solvent.
Falcon’s answer is universal collateralization. Users can mint its synthetic dollar, USDf, by depositing a wide range of assets major crypto like BTC, ETH, and SOL, stablecoins, and increasingly tokenized real-world assets such as gold and government debt.
By December 20, 2025, USDf’s circulating supply had pushed past $2.1 billion, with total value locked sitting in the billions. That growth hasn’t happened in isolation. It’s come alongside rising activity on Base, where Falcon has focused much of its recent expansion.
How the System Actually Works
At the center of Falcon Finance is a dual-token structure that’s easy to understand on the surface, but more nuanced underneath.
USDf is minted by depositing collateral at overcollateralized ratios. It’s designed to be boring in the best way a stable unit that can be traded, lent, or used for payments without chasing yield directly.
Yield comes from sUSDf, which users receive by staking USDf. Instead of relying on a single strategy, sUSDf aggregates returns from multiple sources: funding-rate arbitrage, cross-market strategies, and yields from real-world assets. In practice, this has translated into returns in the 8–9% APY range, holding up relatively well across different market regimes.
Falcon has also leaned hard into interoperability. Recent deployments on Base opened up bridging, staking, and liquidity provisioning through venues like Aerodrome. Falcon handles cross-chain transfers through Chainlink CCIP, with Proof of Reserve systems running in the background to keep collateral backing transparent.
Security and custody haven’t been treated as afterthoughts. Assets are held with custodians such as BitGo, and the protocol has gone through multiple audits. That combination transparent reserves plus institutional custody is a big part of Falcon’s appeal to larger capital.
What the $FF Token Is For
Falcon’s ecosystem token, $FF , isn’t pitched as a meme or a growth hack. It’s meant to sit quietly in the background and accrue value as the system scales.
The numbers themselves are simple. Falcon’s token supply is capped at 10 billion FF, with roughly 2.34 billion currently in circulation. FF isn’t a passive token. It’s how Falcon steers itself and how value flows back to participants over time. Holders can vote on strategy changes and incentive design through the foundation, and staking adds practical perks yield boosts and access to features that aren’t open to everyone. Fees generated by the protocol don’t just disappear either. A share is routed back into buybacks, slowly tightening supply as activity grows.
Price action has been choppy. By December 20, 2025, $FF had been trading in a $0.09 to $0.14 range, with daily volume still reaching the tens of millions across major venues like Binance, KuCoin, and Bitget.That’s a long way from the September high near $0.67, but the slide hasn’t been unique to Falcon. Most altcoins have struggled through the same stretch, even where underlying usage kept improving.
That pattern sums up Falcon’s year. 2025 hasn’t been about big headlines for Falcon. It’s been quieter than that. Progress came through steady execution, integration by integration. The most telling moment arrived on December 18, when Falcon moved its full $2.1 billion USDf supply onto Base. That decision mattered. It showed confidence not just in Base’s capacity, but in Falcon’s own readiness to operate at scale.
The timing wasn’t accidental. Post-Fusaka upgrades made Base far more suitable for complex strategies, and Falcon leaned into those improvements rather than waiting on them.
Real-world assets have followed the same pattern. Instead of rushing announcements, Falcon has been methodically expanding its RWA exposure, treating it as core infrastructure rather than a side narrative. Falcon now supports tokenized gold vaults yielding roughly 3–5%, exposure to corporate credit such as Centrifuge’s JAAA, and early pilots involving sovereign bond tokenization.
On the DeFi side, Falcon has integrated with projects like Velvet Capital (notably the VELVET vaults offering 20–35% yields in USDf), as well as Pendle, Morpho, and Gearbox. These partnerships make USDf and sUSDf easier to deploy across the broader ecosystem.
There are also softer signals of adoption. Whale wallets have been staking, and institutional-facing collaborations continue to appear. Meanwhile, programs like Falcon Miles reward users for minting USDf and providing liquidity, adding multipliers without distorting core incentives.
Where Falcon Fits Going Forward
Falcon Finance doesn’t try to sell itself as revolutionary in tone, but its structure points toward where DeFi is heading. Yield is treated as something to be engineered and diversified, not farmed aggressively. Collateral is expanded instead of narrowed. Transparency and custody are designed with institutions in mind.
As tokenized real-world assets continue moving on-chain and more traditional capital looks for compliant DeFi exposure, Falcon’s model addresses a real problem: fragmented liquidity across too many siloed stablecoins.
If execution continues at its current pace, scaling into multi-billion-dollar TVL territory isn’t unrealistic. For users, USDf and sUSDf offer a way to hold stable liquidity that actually works. For holders, FF represents exposure to a system built around real usage rather than narratives.
Falcon isn’t loud but in a maturing DeFi market, that may be exactly the point.
#falconfinance
@Falcon Finance
$FF

Kite AI sits in a narrow but increasingly important space: what happens when software agents need to pay for things on their own. Not trade tokens. Not speculate. Pay for data, compute, services, and execution without a human approving every step.
That problem doesn’t fit cleanly into existing blockchains. Kite was built specifically for it.
The network is a purpose-built Layer 1, EVM-compatible, designed around identity, permissions, and payments for non-human actors. Everything else consensus, tooling, token design follows from that starting point.
Identity comes before transactions
Most blockchains treat identity as external. Kite doesn’t.
Agents, models, datasets, and users all have distinct cryptographic identities. Control is layered: a human can delegate authority to an agent, restrict its scope, and isolate sessions so mistakes don’t propagate. Reputation accrues over time, not per interaction.
That structure matters because autonomous systems can’t rely on social trust. They need verifiable boundaries.
Payments are built for machines, not wallets
Kite’s payment layer is designed around x402, a protocol that adapts HTTP 402 for machine-to-machine payments. The idea is simple: when an agent consumes a resource, payment happens automatically, with constraints enforced at the protocol level.
Fees are small. Settlement is fast. Spending limits are native.
This isn’t about DeFi yield or financial composability. It’s closer to infrastructure billing except the infrastructure is autonomous.
By late 2025, x402 was already handling hundreds of thousands of transactions weekly. Not because of speculation, but because agents were actually using it.
Rather than paying for throughput or compute, Kite uses PoAI to reward verifiable contributions. The emphasis is on usefulness, not scale.
That design choice keeps incentives aligned with ecosystem value rather than throughput for its own sake. It also reduces the temptation to inflate activity metrics.
Tooling has been the quiet focus
Most recent progress hasn’t been headline-worthy.
SDKs, account abstraction, policy engines, and compliance-friendly logs have been rolling out steadily. These are the pieces enterprises care about, even if they don’t trend on social feeds.
Integrations with existing billing and workflow systems suggest Kite is aiming to disappear into the stack rather than sit on top of it.
Funding bought time, not certainty
Kite raised roughly $33 million, with participation from groups like PayPal Ventures, General Catalyst, Coinbase Ventures, and others. That backing gave the team room to build deliberately.
It doesn’t guarantee adoption. It does explain why the project hasn’t rushed to monetize or overextend.
Where the token fits
$KITE exists to support usage, not drive it.
Max supply: 10 billionCirculating: 1.8 billion
The token is used for:
payments and feesstaking and network securitygovernanceaccess to certain agent tools and modules
Protocol revenue flows back into $KITE through usage, not emissions. There’s no aggressive burn narrative and no attempt to manufacture scarcity.
The token launched in early November 2025. Initial trading volume was heavy, then cooled. Interest didn’t vanish it stabilized.
Market behavior looks like consolidation, not decay
By December 20:
Price hovered around $0.088Market cap sat near $159MDaily volume remained elevated relative to most new L1s
That profile usually suggests people are waiting to see if usage keeps growing, not deciding whether the idea makes sense.
What Kite actually represents
Kite doesn’t feel like a finished product. It feels like plumbing.
If autonomous agents become economically active at scale, systems like this will be required. If they don’t, Kite will remain an interesting experiment with solid engineering.
That’s the bet.
Not that AI agents will trade tokens but that they’ll need to pay for things reliably, predictably, and without human oversight. Kite is building for that world, quietly, one constraint at a time.
No timelines.
No promises.
Just infrastructure, waiting for demand to catch up.
#kite
@KITE AI
$KITE

Bis Ende 2025 ist Bitcoin DeFi nicht mehr nur ein Gedankenexperiment. Kapital bewegt sich, Staking-Primitiven reifen heran, und die Frage verschiebt sich von der Frage, ob BTC produktiv on-chain sein kann, zu der Frage, wie sicher und konsistent diese Produktivität geliefert werden kann. Lorenzo Protocol befindet sich direkt in diesem Übergang.
Anstatt Volumen oder Neuheit nachzujagen, hat Lorenzo sich auf Infrastruktur konzentriert: Bitcoin in ein renditetragendes Asset zu verwandeln, ohne dass die Inhaber ihre Liquidität, Verwahrstandards oder Risikoklarheit opfern müssen. Dieser Fokus hat alles von Produktdesign bis zu Partnerschaften geprägt.

Why Falcon keeps coming up right now
Toward the end of 2025, a lot of DeFi attention shifted away from growth stories and back toward systems that don’t need momentum to function. Falcon falls into that category.
It’s built around a simple idea: let people mint liquidity without selling what they already hold. That’s done through USDf, which is backed by more than just stablecoins or ETH — BTC, altcoins, and a growing list of tokenized real-world assets are all part of the collateral mix.
That breadth is why institutions keep circling it, even when price action cools.
How USDf actually works in practice
USDf is minted against a wide basket:
Stablecoins (USDT, USDC, USD1)Majors like BTC, ETH, SOL, TONRWAs, includingtokenized U.S. Treasuriesgold via XAUtMexican CETESJAAA corporate credit through Centrifugetokenized equities via Backed Finance
Overcollateralization stays north of 100%, and the peg has hovered close to $0.998–$1.00 throughout the year. That stability is what allows USDf to be used as working liquidity rather than a speculative instrument.
When USDf is staked, it becomes sUSDf, which aggregates yield from funding arbitrage, cross-market spreads, staking, DEX liquidity, and RWA returns. Current yields sit in the high single-digits, and they’ve been fairly steady even when markets turned choppy.
Expansion hasn’t been loud, but it’s been deliberate
Falcon is still Ethereum-native, but usage has spread out.
The Base deployment on December 18 mattered mostly because it lowered costs and plugged USDf directly into Aerodrome liquidity. It didn’t change fundamentals overnight, but it made the asset easier to use where activity already exists.
Earlier in the year, Falcon added RWAs in stages:
tokenized stocks in OctoberJAAA in NovemberCETES in December
Each addition widened the collateral base instead of replacing it.
Governance and the role of FF
The FF token exists mostly to align behavior rather than drive speculation.
Max supply: 10 billionCirculating: 2.34 billion
FF is used for:
governance votesstaking boostsparticipation in incentive programs like Falcon Miles and Yap2Flyaccess to certain vault configurations
Protocol fees are routed back into FF via buybacks, tying the token more closely to usage than emissions.
The token launched via TGE on September 29, 2025, followed by listings on major exchanges. Since then, supply dynamics have been predictable, even if price hasn’t been.
Where the numbers landed by late December
USDf supply: $2.1BOn-chain reserves: >$2.3BTVL: largely USDf-driven, north of $2B
For FF itself:
Price: roughly $0.09–$0.13, depending on venueMarket cap: $217–$322MDaily volume: anywhere from $20M to $80M
The token is well off early highs, but liquidity hasn’t disappeared. That’s usually the difference between cooling and breakdown.
What’s keeping it credible
Falcon leaned early into infrastructure partners rather than narratives:
BitGo for custodyChainlink for oraclesDeXe for governance toolingintegrations with Pendle, Curve, Balancer, Aerodrome
Reserve dashboards remain public. Audits continue on a fixed schedule. So far, the $10M backstop hasn’t had to step in.
None of that guarantees safety, but it reduces surprises.
The trade-offs are still there
Nothing here is risk-free:
RWAs bring regulatory and jurisdictional complexityYield depends on market activityOvercollateralization protects the peg, not priceCompetition from Maker, Ethena, and newer designs isn’t going away
Falcon hasn’t eliminated these issues. It’s structured itself so they’re at least visible.
No wrap-up.
No price targets.
Falcon doesn’t look like a protocol chasing growth right now. It looks like one trying to make sure liquidity keeps working when attention fades. For institutions and larger holders, that’s usually when real adoption decisions get made.
#falconfinance
@Falcon Finance
$FF

Woran Kite zu lösen versucht (ohne die Slogans)
Kite sitzt an der Schnittstelle von zwei Dingen, die noch nicht gut funktionieren: KI-Agenten und Geld. Nicht Handelsgeld, operatives Geld. Bezahlen für Daten, Rechenleistung, APIs, Dienstleistungen und schließlich andere Agenten.
Die meisten Systeme gehen immer noch davon aus, dass ein Mensch hinter jeder Transaktion steht. Kite tut das nicht. Der gesamte Stack ist um die Idee herum aufgebaut, dass Agenten Identität, Berechtigungen und Zahlungen benötigen, die nicht jede Schritt des Weges Aufsicht erfordern.
Die Kette selbst ist EVM-kompatibel Layer-1, aber das ist nicht der interessante Teil. Der interessante Teil ist, dass Identität und Zahlungen als erstklassige Primitiven behandelt werden, nicht als Ergänzungen.

What Lorenzo is actually focused on
Lorenzo is still doing the same thing it’s been doing all year: turning BTC and institutional strategies into on-chain yield without forcing holders to give up liquidity. Most of that activity still runs through BNB Chain, with cross-chain execution layered on top where it makes sense.
The BTC side remains tied closely to Babylon staking, while the stablecoin side runs through USD1+, where Lorenzo acts as the asset manager for WLFI’s USD1 ecosystem. The goal hasn’t shifted structured yield, audited strategies, and controlled risk rather than chasing headline APYs.
RWAs, quant trading, and DeFi aren’t separate tracks here. They’re blended intentionally.
Products that actually matter
stBTC
BTC staked via Babylon, wrapped as a liquid token. Principal stays liquid, yield accrues separately. This is still the main entry point for BTC holders who want yield without locking themselves out of DeFi.
enzoBTC
A yield-embedded BTC wrapper that layers Lorenzo’s native strategies and liquidity farming on top. It’s more active than stBTC, and it’s used when people want higher capital efficiency rather than simplicity.
USD1+ OTF
The flagship product. A yield-bearing stable that aggregates returns from RWAs (tokenized treasuries through partners like OpenEden), CeFi quant strategies, and DeFi positions. Testnet went live on BNB Chain in July 2025.
There are two flavors:
USD1+ (rebasing)sUSD1+ (value-accruing)
Both are designed for steadier returns rather than opportunistic yield.
Financial Abstraction Layer (FAL)
This is the machinery underneath everything — capital routing, strategy execution, accounting, and yield distribution. It’s not user-facing, but it’s the reason OTFs behave consistently.
Other structured products
BNB+ vaults, multi-strategy yield setups, and early work on fixed-income-style BTC instruments and enterprise settlement tools. These haven’t been loud launches more incremental additions.
TVL crossed $1 billion during 2025 and has stayed there largely because BTC participants didn’t leave.
BANK supply and how it actually works
Total supply: 2.1 billion BANKGenesis mint (April 18, 2025): 425 millionCirculating today: 527 million
Community allocation caused most of the early movement:
Around 8% of supply was earmarked for community rewardsRoughly 40–42 million BANK distributed via airdrops after the September wallet-binding deadlineBroader rewards pool (about 25%) covers incentives, governance participation, and ecosystem tasks
BANK is used for:
Governance (strategies, upgrades, partnerships)Yield multipliers when staking into OTFs and vaultsFee alignment and revenue participation
Emissions have been gradual. Unlocks are milestone-based rather than front-loaded. There hasn’t been a sudden inflation event since launch.
Where the market has landed (December 20)
Price: $0.03524h volume: $6 million, with HTX usually leadingMarket cap: $18–19 millionRanking: around 730FDV: still well above spot, as expected
The Binance spot listing on November 13 created an initial volume spike, then things settled. Recent daily moves have been small — slight upticks some days, but roughly -11% over the week, in line with the rest of the market.
Nothing here suggests panic or momentum. It’s mostly waiting.
What hasn’t changed
No major product launches since the Binance listing.
No shift away from RWAs or BTCFi.
Security posture remains conservative audits first, expansion second.
Partnerships like OpenEden continue to underpin the yield stack rather than drive speculation.
Lorenzo still feels like a protocol built for people who don’t need to be convinced every week.
No summary line.
No price targets.
At this point, Lorenzo looks less like something trying to grow fast and more like something designed to stay intact while BTC-based yield matures. Whether that gets rewarded quickly is unclear. Whether it matters long-term depends on whether BTCFi keeps favoring structure over speed.
#lorenzoprotocol
@Lorenzo Protocol
$BANK

In einem bestimmten Stadium hören Systeme auf, Ideen zu benötigen, und beginnen, Pflege zu benötigen.
Falcon Finance scheint diese Grenze zu überschreiten.
Governance innerhalb des Protokolls fühlt sich nicht mehr wie ein Ort an, an dem Richtung diskutiert wird. Es fühlt sich näher an der Art von Wartung an, die die Infrastruktur stabil hält, ohne Aufmerksamkeit auf sich zu ziehen.
Dieser Wandel sagt mehr über Reife als über Ambition aus.
Von Entscheidungen zu Instandhaltung
Frühe Governance dreht sich um Entscheidungen.
Welche Vermögenswerte unterstützt werden sollen.
Wie aggressive Parameter sein sollten.
Wo das Wachstum herkommen sollte.

In traditionellen Systemen ist einer der schwierigsten Teile eines Vorfalls nicht das Beheben des Problems, sondern das Verständnis, was autorisiert wurde, wann und von wem.
Protokolle sagen Ihnen, dass etwas passiert ist. Aber sie sagen selten, warum das System dachte, die Aktion sei legitim.
Das sitzungsbasierte Identitätsmodell von Kite vereinfacht dieses Bild auf eine Weise, die nur wenige Systeme tun.
Kurzlebige Autorität, klarer Anfang und Ende
In den meisten Automatisierungsstapeln sind die Anmeldeinformationen langlebig. Ein kompromittierter Schlüssel kann monatelang agieren, bevor jemand es bemerkt.

In den meisten DeFi-Protokollen ist die Zeit nebensächlich.
Stimmen passieren, Parameter ändern sich, und die Ausführung folgt sofort.
Innerhalb von Lorenzo ist die Zeit Teil des Kontrollsystems geworden.
Entscheidungen betreffen nicht nur, was sich ändert, sondern auch, wann diese Änderungen wirksam werden dürfen.
Warum Geschwindigkeit ein Risiko wurde
Als Lorenzos OTFs begannen, echte Exposition zu verwalten, trat schnell ein Problem auf:
Schnelle Entscheidungen führten zu fragilen Ergebnissen.
Sofortige Parameteränderungen verstärkten das Rauschen.
Kurzfristige Volatilität löste Reaktionen aus, die isoliert rational, aber in der Folge destabilisiert wirkten.

In den meisten Finanzsystemen wird Risiko gebündelt.
Du baust große Puffer, und wenn Stress auftritt, stützt sich jeder auf diese Puffer, um Schocks abzufangen.
Falcon Finance verfolgt einen anderen Ansatz.
Anstatt das Risiko in riesigen gemeinsamen Reserven zu zentrieren, strukturiert es die Exposition auf Pool-Ebene, sodass Druck in einem Bereich nicht automatisch in einen anderen übergeht.
Dieses Design beseitigt kein Risiko.
Es enthält es.
Und das Containment ist eine Art von Resilienz.
Was Segmentierung tatsächlich bewirkt
Falcons Sicherheiten-System ist modular.

In vielen Blockchain-Systemen ist Identität ein Häkchen – etwas, das man einmal hat und dann vergisst.
Kite betrachtet Identität als einen fortlaufenden Vertrag: eine Reihe von Grenzen, die definiert, was passieren kann, wann es passieren kann und wer dafür verantwortlich sein muss.
Das mag subtil erscheinen, aber wenn Automatisierung mit regulierten Arbeitsabläufen interagiert – Zahlungen, Überweisungen, Compliance-Prüfungen – wird diese Unterscheidung operationell bedeutungsvoll.
Identität als eine Verge, nicht als ein Abzeichen
Die meisten Identitätssysteme stoppen, sobald eine Brieftasche verifiziert oder ein Zertifikat ausgestellt wird. Danach fällt alles auf erlaubte Logik oder breite Zugriffsregeln zurück.

Während die DeFi-Protokolle wachsen, sieht sich die Governance einem subtilen Problem gegenüber.
Nicht jeder Teilnehmer sollte entscheiden – aber viele müssen interpretieren.
Lorenzo beginnt, eine klare Grenze zwischen den beiden zu ziehen.
Daten sind nicht länger die Debatte
In Lorenzos früher Phase drehten sich die Diskussionen über die Governance oft um die Interpretation.
Was bedeutet diese Kennzahl?
Ist diese Abweichung bedeutungsvoll?
Sollte dieses Signal Maßnahmen auslösen?
Als das Reporting reifte, verloren diese Fragen ihren Reiz. Die Daten wurden standardisiert, wiederkehrend und über Zyklen hinweg vergleichbar. Die Interpretation hörte auf, spekulativ zu sein.

Where things stand right now
By mid-December, USDf supply sits around $2.1–2.2 billion. Reserves are higher roughly $2.3 to $2.5 billion, depending on the day. Overcollateralization has stayed comfortably above 105%, sometimes closer to 115–118%.
That ratio hasn’t tightened even as markets slowed down. No visible stress. No sudden changes to parameters.
FF itself trades actively. Daily volume usually lands somewhere between $20 and $40 million, mostly on Binance and KuCoin. Liquidity hasn’t thinned out in the way smaller governance tokens often do in December.
The Base deployment mattered for cost, not optics
USDf going live on Base on December 18 wasn’t about expansion headlines. It lowered friction.
Bridging from Ethereum is cheaper. Staking and liquidity provision are easier to manage. Aerodrome pools filled quickly enough to support size without obvious slippage. For anyone already operating on Base, USDf no longer feels external.
That doesn’t change total supply overnight, but it changes where activity can happen without penalty.
Reserve composition hasn’t narrowed
Backing is still spread out. Roughly:
BTC makes up the largest share (around mid-40% range)Stablecoins sit closer to 35–40%The rest is split across RWAs tokenized Treasuries, corporate credit via JAAA, Mexican CETES, and gold through XAUt
The mix hasn’t leaned harder into any single asset class. That’s intentional. It’s also why reserve ratios haven’t had to be adjusted aggressively this year.
Liquidity hasn’t been fragile
USDf liquidity remains deep across familiar venues Uniswap, Curve, Balancer, and now Aerodrome post-Base deployment. Large mints and redemptions have gone through without noticeable dislocation.
Cross-chain support hasn’t changed much otherwise. Ethereum, Arbitrum, and BNB Chain remain active paths. Base just adds another place where liquidity already exists.
There haven’t been forced restrictions or throttles introduced to manage flow.
FF token behavior has stayed functional
FF volume continues to cluster around $20–40 Million daily. FF/USDT pair on Binance still does most of the work. Market depth has been enough to absorb institutional-sized trades without obvious price gaps.
CreatorPad incentives 800,000 FF distributed through December 28 — added some turnover, but didn’t distort pricing in either direction.
There hasn’t been a liquidity crunch tied to FF at any point this year.
Risk controls haven’t been tested hard which is the point
Overcollateralization ratios adjust based on asset volatility and liquidity. That mechanism hasn’t needed to move aggressively in 2025.
The $10 million insurance fund remains untouched. It exists as a last-resort backstop, not something meant to be used regularly.
One structural detail that still stands out: users don’t get forcibly liquidated in the usual way. If thresholds are breached under certain mint modes, the collateral is forfeited, but minted USDf isn’t clawed back. That design choice limits cascade effects during stress.
A brief peg wobble back in July 2025 resolved quickly. Nothing similar has shown up since.
The dashboards are still open, reserves get refreshed regularly, and audits haven’t slipped from the quarterly schedule.
No wrap-up here.
No claims about dominance.
Falcon’s liquidity framework looks less like something chasing growth and more like something built to avoid surprises. At year-end, that’s what most large holders seem to be watching.
#falconfinance
@Falcon Finance
$FF

Where the market sits
Bitcoin has spent most of December holding above $89,000, and that’s slowed everything down. Builders are still shipping, but capital isn’t rushing to price it in.
Kite sits in that gap.
$KITE trades around $0.088, up a bit on the day, flat over the week. Market cap is roughly $158 million, daily volume usually $45–56 million, ranking in the mid-3222170s. Nothing here suggests momentum but nothing looks stressed either.
The launch spike back on November 3 pulled more than $260 million in volume across Binance, Upbit, and Bithumb. Price never followed through. Since then, it’s mostly been consolidation.
What’s actually getting used
The center of activity is still x402, now running at V2. Weekly transaction counts peaked around 932,000 by October and haven’t dropped off since. That’s notable in a market where attention moves on quickly.
The protocol does one thing well: machine-to-machine payments without friction. HTTP 402 repurposed, fees cut sharply, settlement fast enough for agents to operate without waiting on humans.
Alongside that, MCP has quietly become more relevant than it looked on paper. It removes a lot of glue code between agents and services. Less integration work, fewer brittle connections.
Testnet numbers remain large 50M+ wallets, 300M+ transactions, 30M daily agent calls but those have been large for a while. The more interesting part is that they haven’t fallen off.
MCP and payments are pulling things together
The system now feels less like separate modules and more like a pipeline.
Agents keep their identities through Kite Passport. Payments move through x402. MCP handles the handshake with services. The pieces don’t fight each other.
This is what makes the e-commerce pilots possible. Agents paying Shopify or PayPal merchants isn’t about autonomy it’s about reliability. Persistent identity and predictable payment behavior matter more than intelligence here.
The Agent App Store abstracts execution so builders don’t need to hard-code every interaction. SDKs and account abstraction do the rest.
The Global Tour wasn’t about hype
The Kite Global Tour kicked off December 16, with stops in Chiang Mai and Seoul. It didn’t change on-chain metrics overnight.
What it did do was put developers in the same room with the protocol. That matters more for infra projects than social impressions. The turnout was strong enough that follow-up events are already being discussed.
This kind of momentum doesn’t show up on a chart.
Token structure hasn’t shifted
Supply is still capped at 10 billion.Circulating sits at 1.8 billion, about 18%.FDV remains near $883 million, which keeps valuation debates alive even when price is quiet.
Allocation hasn’t moved:
48% to community and ecosystem programs12% to investors20% to team and early contributors, vesting through 2027the rest held in reserves
Staking yields sit around 12–15%, funded by usage rather than emissions. There are no burns. Unlocks don’t begin until Q2 2026, which removes near-term supply shocks but keeps dilution in the background.
Adoption exists, just not evenly
More than 50 dApps are active now trading bots, data agents, logistics tools. OKX Wallet support smoothed user flows, and Pieverse (live since November 12) made cross-protocol movement less painful.
Sentiment reflects the broader tape. Roughly 60% bullish on social channels, mostly tied to mainnet expectations. The rest remains cautious, which fits the environment.
Price is still well below the $0.13–0.14 area from early November, but it’s also holding well above earlier lows.
Risks haven’t gone away
Most of them are structural:
Dilution — over 80% of supply is still lockedAdoption risk — agent payments are still early, and volume can stallRegulatory uncertainty — autonomous agents and micropayments aren’t fully mapped yetExecution risk — mainnet hasn’t been tested at full loadCompetition — projects like Fetch.ai don’t disappear
Funding helps. The $33 million raise from PayPal Ventures, General Catalyst, and Coinbase Ventures buys time, not certainty.
No closing argument here.
No targets.
Kite feels less like a narrative play right now and more like infrastructure slowly being connected in the right order. Whether that matters to the market this quarter is unclear. Whether it matters once agents actually need to pay for things is a different question.
#kite
@GoKiteAI
$KITE

The market backdrop hasn’t changed much
Bitcoin has been sitting above $89,000 through December, and that calm has taken some pressure off yield systems that usually get stress-tested when volatility spikes. It’s also thinned out speculation. Most participants aren’t chasing anything right now.
Lorenzo is operating inside that lull.
$BANK trades around $0.036–0.045, depending on venue. Market cap sits roughly $16–20 million, with daily volume usually $6–8 million. It’s still more than 80% below the October highs near $0.23, but price has stopped accelerating downward.
What hasn’t moved is TVL. It remains above $1 billion, anchored by BTC restaking and OTF strategies that continue to post high-20% yields. That stability is the main thing people are watching.
What the “Banking Onchain Push” actually signals
The December 16 “Banking Onchain Push” wasn’t a product launch. It was a framing shift.
The focus was on how BTC liquidity is structured and managed once it’s tokenized not just how yield is generated, but how risk is distributed. The emphasis on diversified collateral, execution discipline, and liquidity matching reflects lessons learned earlier in the year when BTC-Fi systems broke under stress.
Nothing changed mechanically overnight. What changed was the direction of attention.
That shift lines up closely with WLFI’s moves earlier in December.
Lorenzo’s role hasn’t changed — just sharpened
Lorenzo still operates through the Financial Abstraction Layer, packaging off-chain and hybrid strategies into on-chain structures. Most execution continues to run on BNB Smart Chain, with support extending across 20+ networks, including Ethereum.
The result isn’t a single vault but a set of OTFs, mixing RWAs, quant trades, managed futures, and DeFi yield in the same structure.They’re designed to be legible, auditable, and constrained rather than flexible for its own sake.
As WLFI’s asset manager, Lorenzo also underpins USD1+, pushing it beyond payments into yield territory. The Q2 2025 audits closed earlier issues around reentrancy and oracle handling, which mattered more than any feature release this quarter.
The “real finance feel” people mention isn’t accidental. It’s the design target.
Products that continue to anchor liquidity
The core stack hasn’t changed, but it’s worth restating how capital stays in place:
USD1+ OTF
A yield-bearing stable that aggregates OpenEden RWAs (added July 2025), DeFi positions, and quant strategies. Testnet remains live; mainnet rollout has been deliberately gradual. sUSD1+ benefits directly from WLFI’s Binance liquidity support, reducing slippage during stress.
stBTC
Babylon-secured liquid BTC staking. It’s still the main TVL anchor. BTC stays liquid, yield keeps coming. Cross-chain portability helps avoid liquidity bottlenecks.
enzoBTC
A yield-embedded wrapper that separates principal from rewards via YATs and LPTs. Phase Two went live in Q3 2025, specifically to reduce forced exits during volatile periods.
The BlockStreetXYZ integration in August expanded USD1 settlement paths. Since then, inflows have been steady rather than aggressive which, given the market, is probably the healthier outcome.
Supply dynamics are no longer a mystery
BANK launched on April 18, 2025, with a fixed 2.1 billion total supply. Roughly 555 million BANK is circulating at this point, a little over a quarter of total supply.FDV remains near $98–100 million, depending on price.
There are no burns. Value accrual runs through veBANK governance participation, emissions linked to OTF revenue, and alignment with TVL growth rather than deflation.
Distribution remains unchanged:
8% community allocation, with 42 million BANK airdropped between August and September3% marketing allocation vesting through 2026Remaining emissions taper with TVL
The Binance listing on November 13 improved liquidity but also coincided with the tail end of airdrop selling. That overhang explains much of the price compression since October.
WLFI liquidity helped in indirect ways
WLFI’s December 10–11 Binance expansions new USD1 pairs, zero-fee trading, and BUSD-to-USD1 conversions weren’t designed for Lorenzo specifically.
But they increased USD1 circulation, which flows straight into Lorenzo’s OTF stack. Execution improved. Slippage narrowed. None of this showed up as a spike in TVL, but it reduced stress at the edges.
TVL stayed above $1 billion through mid-December. Active addresses didn’t fall off.
Price behavior without urgency
BANK has traded mostly between $0.037 and $0.045 through December. Volume is present but muted. The move up from the $0.018 lows earlier in the year remains intact, but there’s no rush back into risk.
Most holders appear focused on emissions, vesting schedules, and WLFI dependency rather than upside targets.
The risks haven’t changed — just the framing
Some of these are structural:
Dilution pressure
Marketing vesting and emissions continue without burns. Supply growth matters if demand stalls.
WLFI / USD1 reliance
Lorenzo’s most visible growth path runs through USD1 adoption, which introduces regulatory and execution risk outside Lorenzo’s direct control.
Strategy sensitivity
OTF performance still depends on market conditions. Volatility cuts both ways, and competition from Pendle and Centrifuge hasn’t eased.
Smart contract and oracle risk
Audits reduce surface area, not tail risk.
None of this is new. What’s changed is that Lorenzo seems to be designing around these constraints instead of ignoring them.
No summary.
No targets.
The “Banking Onchain Push” isn’t about growth. It’s about making sure BTC-based liquidity doesn’t fracture when conditions tighten. Whether that approach gets rewarded depends less on sentiment and more on whether BTCFi keeps preferring systems that don’t unravel under their own complexity.
#lorenzoprotocol
@Lorenzo Protocol
$BANK

What actually changed this week
Falcon moving USDf onto Base on December 18 is the most concrete thing that’s happened recently. Not because it adds a new narrative, but because it lowers friction.
USDf supply sits around $2.1 billion, with reserves closer to $2.3 billion, so overcollateralization hasn’t been compromised. What changes on Base is cost. Cheaper transactions, easier access to sUSDf staking, and tighter integration with Base-native liquidity like Aerodrome. For builders already active there, it removes a step.
TVL stayed near $2 billion through the rollout. No spike, no drop. Just continuity.
Price hasn’t followed usage, and that’s not new
FF trades roughly between $0.092 and $0.115, depending on venue. Market cap floats in the $217–268 million range. Volumes are still active anywhere from $38 to $80 million daily on Binance and Bitget but price action hasn’t escaped the broader altcoin malaise.
What has been visible is staking behavior. Several recent vault deposits exceeded $5 million, and those positions haven’t rushed for exits. That’s been enough to keep sell pressure manageable even as sentiment stays cautious.
USDf’s peg remains tight, hovering around $0.998–0.999.
Token structure is doing its job, slowly
Maximum supply for FF remains 10 billion, with about 2.34 billion circulating roughly 23% unlocked. The allocation split hasn’t changed:
35–40% ecosystem incentives (Miles, quests, grants)32.2% held by the FF Foundation20% team allocation, vesting over 36 monthsthe rest split between investors and community
Staking veFF still boosts sUSDf yields to around 12%, up from a base of 8.7–9%. The current 160× Miles multipliers, running through December 28, have pushed more supply into locked positions without introducing new emissions.
Fees 5% on trades and mints continue to fund burns at roughly 0.2% per month, alongside the $10 million insurance fund. December inflows alone are estimated to contribute $750k+ toward protocol revenue.
More than 45% of circulating FF is staked. The next meaningful unlock around 1.23% in March 2026 is still far enough out that it hasn’t become a daily concern yet.
Vaults keep attracting very different kinds of capital
The recent vault launches didn’t overlap much in audience.
The Tokenized Gold Vault, live since December 11, offers 3–5% APR in USDf for XAUt deposits. It’s conservative, and the inflows reflect that. Gold now forms a meaningful slice of Falcon’s RWA mix.
The AIO Staking Vault, launched December 14, sits on the opposite end. OlaXBT staking pays 20–35% APR, mostly on BNB Chain. This is where larger wallets have shown up, despite the broader market cooling.
Together, they widen the collateral base without forcing Falcon to rely on a single yield source.
Underneath it all, the same engine
Falcon still mints USDf against a mix of crypto and RWAs BTC, ETH, SOL, plus JAAA corporate credit, Mexican CETES, and now tokenized gold via XAUt. That collateral feeds sUSDf, which aggregates yield from funding arbitrage, staking, and DEX liquidity.
Cumulative yields distributed are now north of $19 million.
Integrations with Pendle and Curve allow yield slicing. Audits from PeckShield remain current. Monthly active users sit above 60,000, growing gradually rather than explosively.
Q1 2026 sovereign bond pilots involving two governments are still in preparation. They matter, but they aren’t live yet.
Valuation versus behavior
At current prices, Falcon’s TVL-to-market-cap ratio sits above 6×, which keeps coming up in comparisons with peers. That gap hasn’t closed. It also hasn’t widened.
Sentiment leans cautiously bullish around the Base deployment and RWA mix, but fear in the broader market has capped follow-through.
The same risks, just clearer now
High APRs depend on activity. If volumes dry up, sUSDf yields can compress toward 5–7%. That’s not theoretical it’s how the strategies work.
RWA exposure brings regulatory attention. MiCA and SEC frameworks could force deeper audits or slower rollout schedules. Collateral concentration in BTC and ETH still matters during sharp moves. Vesting remains a 2026 problem, not a 2025 one.
Volatility in the 30–40% range hasn’t disappeared.
No outlook section.
No upside ladder.
Falcon’s Base deployment doesn’t change what the protocol is it just makes it easier to use where activity already exists. Whether that turns into sustained inflows depends less on narratives and more on whether the vaults keep doing what they’ve been doing quietly all year.
#falconfinance
@Falcon Finance
$FF

Die Marktbedingungen helfen nicht, aber sie brechen die Dinge auch nicht.
Der breitere Markt ist immer noch angespannt. Angst & Gier liegt bei etwa 20, und Bitcoin schwebt nahe $89.000, ohne sich in die eine oder andere Richtung zu bewegen. Die meisten Altcoins haben in dieser Umgebung keinen Schwung gefunden.
Kite hat diesem Druck nicht entkommen. $KITE handelt nahe $0.0838, leicht gestiegen im Tagesverlauf, insgesamt stabil. Die Marktkapitalisierung liegt bei etwa $151 Millionen, das tägliche Handelsvolumen bei etwa $33 Millionen, das Ranking liegt nahe 170. Nichts hier deutet auf einen Ausbruch hin, aber nichts sieht auch unordentlich aus.