Comparison with MakerDAO: RWA layout is more in-depth.
MakerDAO's RWA is primarily based on government bonds, while FalconFinance has formed a diversified RWA system of 'government bonds + corporate bonds + gold', achieving on-chain minting of government bonds in July 2025, and will connect to private credit in 2026. USDf's 116% collateralization rate is higher than MakerDAO's 110%, and it supports more types of collateral assets, including ETH, stablecoins, and tokenized assets, resulting in better capital efficiency. The gold redemption service is an area that MakerDAO has not yet ventured into, creating a unique competitive barrier.
Comparison with Aave: the stablecoin ecosystem is more complete.
Aave focuses on lending scenarios, while FalconFinance builds a closed loop of 'stablecoin minting - earning - physical redemption': sUSDf's 9.30% APY is higher than Aave USDC's 3.2%, and the sources of income are more diversified; the fiat channel and gold exchange make USDf's practical application scenarios far exceed Aave's on-chain lending. The governance and yield binding mechanism of the FF token also incentivizes long-term holding more than Aave's governance token, leading to stronger ecological stickiness.
Comparison with Circle: CeDeFi integration is more thorough
Circle, as a pure CeFi stablecoin issuer, relies on centralized reserve management, while FalconFinance achieves on-chain transparency and real-world connectivity through its CeDeFi model of 'automated execution via smart contracts + foundation compliance control'. The multi-chain deployment and cross-chain transfer efficiency of USDf surpass those of USDC, and the tokenization of RWA assets is an innovation that Circle has yet to implement. This integration advantage leads to a penetration rate in emerging markets that far exceeds that of Circle.
#falconfinanc @Falcon Finance $FF
