Zero foundation equals zero threshold, zero threshold equals perfect competition, perfect competition equals no arbitrage space—this is common sense in economics. ZEROBASE offers you an annualized return of 8%+2%, and it even has three auditing firms to dress up the facade, do they really think they are some kind of charity association?

The question is: Where does the profit come from?

The first possibility: management fees + performance commission—clear rules. You deposit U, they run strategies, if they make a profit, you get 80%, they keep 20%. But if quantitative strategies can truly stabilize at an annualized return of 10%+, wouldn’t it be better to start a private fund and take a 20% performance fee for yourself? Why let retail investors come in and share the pie? Unless— they need your principal as 'margin' to leverage a bigger market. Your U is their ammunition.

The second possibility: the time difference of capital accumulation — the idea of JD White Bar, correct. As long as someone deposits money, there is a capital pool; as long as not 100% of the funds are in real-time trading, there is accumulated capital. Even if this part of the money is just for lending to earn interest or for hedging arbitrage, it is still a stable cash flow. Traditional finance calls it 'floating deposits', which Buffett has played with for a lifetime. But 58 million TVL is not enough to see, it needs to reach several billion to really play.

The third possibility: issuing tokens is the ultimate answer — the ultimate end of DeFi business is always issuing tokens. Tokens can be liquidated, tokens can be locked up, tokens can create 'false prosperity'. Now with a TVL of 58 million, when tokens are issued, it can surge to 300-500 million, and the valuation will take off directly. Early staking users receive airdrops, the project side gains liquidity, a win-win — the premise is that the token price does not collapse. But what happens after issuing tokens? What supports the token price? It can't rely on new money to pay old money forever.

The fourth possibility: casino logic — any asset management agreement is essentially a casino: you bet that the strategy can make money, and they always make a profit from the fees. The difference is, some casinos only take the fees and do not touch the principal, while others engage in the game themselves. ZEROBASE claims to run quant strategies, which is equivalent to a hybrid of a casino and a dealer, with all risks lying in the strategy itself. If the strategy collapses, it's the next FTX.

The fifth possibility: the darkest version — the Ponzi cycle — 8% + 2% returns, if earned through real trading, that is very healthy. But if the trading cannot earn that much, it has to rely on new money to pay old money — this is Ponzi. Currently, it is not clear if they are, but all high-yield agreements have this suspicion. Audits can only ensure contract safety, but cannot guarantee the sustainability of the business model.

So, what exactly does ZEROBASE rely on to make money?

It's highly likely a combination punch: management fees as a base, floating deposits thickening, and getting rich from issuing tokens, forming a closed loop of the three. As long as the TVL grows fast enough, the first two can cover costs; if the TVL stagnates, it must rely on the third to survive. As for whether it will slide into a Ponzi scheme, it depends on the real yield rate of the strategy and the team's integrity.

For those with no foundation, it's not a pit, it's fuel. The little interest you earn might just be the cost of their TVL growth. Think this through before deciding whether to store U.

Finally, I leave you with a saying: capital never sleeps, but capital does not do charity either. The lower the threshold, the more sickles there are. Is ZEROBASE really a zero foundation or a return to zero everything? Time will provide the answer.#zerobase $ZBT @ZEROBASE