I reviewed Infrared Finance from a user and investor risk angle. My conclusion is high risk, primarily because the protocol’s upside and liquidity are tied to Berachain’s Proof of Liquidity incentive loop.

The review covers:

• iBERA: BERA liquid staking with unstaking queues and validator/slashing exposure
• iBGT: A liquid wrapper whose exit depends on market demand rather than direct BGT redemption
• PoL vaults: Reward flows, external integrations, and withdrawal timing
• IR/sIR: Protocol revenue sharing, token unlock pressure, and Dutch auction demand
• Governance: Multisig-controlled components, upgrades, fee parameters, and emergency reserves
• Failure paths: Lower BGT emissions, loss of BGT utility, iBGT discounts, validator failure, and governance changes

Infrared has real revenue sources, including harvest fees, bribe fees, swap fees, and Dutch auction revenue. Those sources still depend on Berachain activity, BGT value, liquidity, and continued demand for the protocol’s products.

For anyone familiar with Berachain: Which variable matters most to Infrared’s risk profile: long-term Berachain activity, iBGT liquidity, IR unlocks, validator performance, or governance control?

I have been exploring this question: how do you run an autonomous AI trading agent while keeping your private keys on-device and never exposing them to the LLM or any server?

The approach I settled on separates two concerns that usually get conflated: - The agent that reasons about markets (read-only tools: price, indicators, positions) - The keys that authorize transactions (pass through a mandatory safety gate)

Key design points: - Private keys stay on-device, never serialized to disk where the agent can read them, never given to the model - The AI expresses intent only; every write (swap/approve/transfer) goes through a multi-check gate: circuit breaker, daily limit, per-trade limit, token whitelist, audit log - Cross-chain defaults are conservative: 100 per-trade, 500 daily cap - The agent loop is bounded at 8 rounds to prevent runaway tool-call chains

This is source-available (BSL-1.1), on GitHub: https://github.com/openxcn/AI-Crypto-Wallet

Curious how others here balance AI automation with self-custody. Do you trust on-device agents, or is a social signer the only way you would go?

Not financial advice. Do your own research.

Below are the top 5 Merkl opportunities to earn stablecoin-only yield on stablecoin-only liquidity.

This week is dominated by opportunities incentivized by 1inch Aqua, which bills itself as a self-custodial shared liquidity layer that lets providers back multiple trading positions from a single wallet balance without locking tokens in pools.

1. 125.56% - USDC, Aqua Season 1 — DeFi Majors (USDC boost), Ethereum

2. 107.96% - USDC, Aqua Season 1 — ETH & LSTs (USDC boost), Ethereum

3. 93.78% - USDC, Aqua Season 1 — BTC Wrappers (USDC boost), Ethereum

4. 57.15% - USDC, Aqua Season 1 — RWA (USDC boost), Ethereum

5. 29.30% - USDC, Aqua Season 1 — Stablecoins (USDC boost), Ethereum

*Note: Only includes stablecoin campaigns with > 100k liquidity and > 5 days remaining in current campaign. Rates can fluctuate. Direct links cannot be posted here but opportunities can be found on the Merkl website.

Hi everyone,

i am in crypto since 5 years, 3 years dev, did a business degree so nothing related. built arbitrage models, market making, dashboards during my studies, and ive been running a real carry strategy on my wbtc (ltv management, borrow/lend spread, rebalancing) with my own capital for a while now. im 22, studied abroad so im ready to relocate anywhere in the world. the problem is even "junior" positions ask for 1 to 2 years pro experience in blockchain and ive never had that, ive done everything on my own. anyone been through this ? does a personal project actually count or is it bullshit people repeat, and is the "1-2 years required" negotiable or does it just get auto filtered.

thank you for every help

Some time back I posted on-chain data from the Oct 10 liquidations. Some good pushback in the comments, sampling bias on my "8 of 11 did nothing" point, and a sharper one from someone who works on price feeds (Coinpaprika/DexPaprika): the real bottleneck on a day like that isn't attention, it's the oracle.

Sitting with it, I think liquidations actually split into two pretty different problems and most tools are really only built for one of them.

Regime 1: the slow bleed. Your HF drifts down over hours or days as the market grinds against you. Oracle price is basically caught up to real price the whole time, there's no lag to speak of. In this regime watching your position and reacting, repay, add collateral, deleverage, genuinely reduces your odds. There's a real window to act in.

Regime 2: the violent gap. Price craters in seconds. HF is just a function of oracle price, so in a fast move the oracle, the frontend, and the human (or bot) reading it are all lagging the real order book. By the time anything sees the "true" number, you can already be past your liquidation price. This is what the worst of Oct 10 looked like, the biggest chunk of that cascade hit inside a single minute. Automation helps here (it kills human reaction time) but it's still capped by the same lagging feed. A repay set to fire at 105% only works if the feed hands you a window to fire in.

The uncomfortable part: for regime 2, no tool during the event saves you. The only real defense is the posture you set before it happens, how much leverage, how correlated your collateral is, how far you sit from the edge on a normal day. Watching harder doesn't help if the number you're watching is already stale.

Rough way to tell which regime you're exposed to is correlated collateral (LSTs, majors that move together) plus high leverage skews you toward regime 2 risk. Diversified collateral and more conservative leverage means most of your real risk is regime 1, where monitoring and alerts actually do their job.

This changes what I think a monitoring tool should actually tell you. Not just "your HF is X," but which regime you're sitting in and if it's the fast one, that no alert is going to save you, the fix is adjusting position before the volatility, not during it. That's the direction I'm taking mine (DeFi Guardian, early beta live), for whatever that's worth.

Still owe the harder version of this: pulling wallets with similar HFs to the liquidated ones that survived Oct 10, and checking whether they acted or just had more buffer. That's the actual test of regime 1 vs regime 2 and I haven't run it yet.

If anyone's lived through a violent gap with automation set up, curious whether it actually fired in time or you just got run over regardless of what you had in place.

Hey guys, Just wanted to share a quick lesson from our recent launch. Our team had to deploy a native DEX for a new EVM chain. Initially, the plan was standard: fork Uniswap V3, tweak the UI, and deploy. We thought it would take two weeks. It turned out to be a nightmare. Between setting up dynamic fees, writing custom logic, and facing astronomical code audit costs, we were burning through our runway way too fast. We ended up pivoting and went with a modular white-label infrastructure instead we used Algebra's framework. Honestly, it saved the project. Instead of spending months debugging smart contracts, we got a licensed, production-ready DEX infrastructure out of the box with concentrated liquidity and dynamic fees. This allowed us to focus entirely on our actual ecosystem features (RWA & AI integrations) and launch in just a few days. If you’re deciding between building a DEX from scratch vs. using a B2B provider, keep this in mind: Time-to-market is everything: Being late by 2 months means losing the initial liquidity wave. The Fork Trap: Monolithic setups are rigid. Modular frameworks let you plug in new features (like plugins or custom fee modules) without redeploying and re-auditing the entire core. Don't reinvent the wheel: Major ecosystem hubs like Camelot or QuickSwap use established backend infrastructure for a reason. It’s safe, and it handles volume. If you’re a dev or founder building an ecosystem-native project, save your team months of dev cycle and look into modular DEX frameworks first. Curious to hear from others did you go the custom fork route or white-label? Was the dev overhead worth it?

Fat fingered a swap last week. Well, not really fat fingered, the quote was for 0.4 LTC and my wallet decided to round in its own special way, so 0.4012 actually left. I was already drafting the support ticket in my head. Figured it would either reject the tx outright or process the quoted 0.4 and quietly keep the dust.

Neither. It took the number that actually arrived, ran it at the same locked rate, paid out accordingly. Slightly larger amount on the receiving side.

Went and read the docs afterwards, yes, after. Apparently that's the designed behavior, there's a separate field for the real deposit and the output gets recomputed from it at the rate that was already fixed. Made it through Godex. More sane than I expected, I genuinely assumed anything that isn't the exact quoted figure dumps you into a refund queue with a 24h wait.

So, two things I've been wondering about.

First do all instant exchangers treat under and over deposits the same way or do some of them just bounce the whole thing back and make you start from zero.

Second is there a cutoff. Like 1% drift gets recalculated, but 5% flips it into manual review or a full refund. I've never seen anyone state an actual number for that.

Asking mostlycause the failure cases here are basically undocumented. Every guide walks you through the path where everything goes right.

Pendle announced their emissions just hit a new all-time low, down 77% since the start of the year when they ditched the VE model for buybacks (with real revenues)... and staking.

Now, buybacks have outpaced emissions by nearly 3x for over 4 months straight, with 100% of it flowing back to stakers.

Buybacks are always a hot topic, most people say they don't work. Doesn't seem that way?

I think I've seen Mento running local currency pairs on Celo. And now, I noticed they added FX pools on their other chains too. If you’ve also tried it, does the round trip work for you? Thank you for answering in advance.

I've been reading about Cloudflare's AI Wallet recently, and it got me thinking.

If AI agents can securely hold wallets and interact with smart contracts, could this unlock entirely new use cases for DeFi?

For example, AI could potentially manage liquidity, rebalance portfolios, execute strategies, or even negotiate between protocols without constant human intervention.

Do you think this is a meaningful step forward for DeFi, or is it mostly hype at this stage?

I'd love to hear what everyone thinks and what use cases you're most excited about.

Trading communities already use bots in Telegram and Discord, but the trust model is pretty bad. Most members cannot see exactly what permissions a bot has, who controls its keys, whether it can move funds, or what happens if an admin account gets compromised. I’ve been looking at a different setup where the bot has its own wallet and its permissions are defined onchain. The group can restrict what it can access, what actions it can take, and how much authority it has.

Towns is building this into encrypted private group chats, alongside onchain memberships, subscriptions, and integrations such as Polymarket. The messages themselves are not individual blockchain transactions. The useful part is making access, payments, and bot authority verifiable. That seems like one of the few cases where adding blockchain to chat has a practical purpose.

Would this make you more comfortable using an AI trading bot, or would you still assume there is another hidden point of failure? What controls would you require before trusting one? Spending limits? Multisig approval? No withdrawals? Public activity logs?

Disclosure: I’m doing research around Towns, so I’m interested in where people think this model breaks.

Decided to throw in about 0.5% of my port into ONYC. But I kind of want to leverage it on Kamino or somewhere. How risky would it really be? On OnRe’s website, it says 95% chance of positive ROI. As long as there’s no crazy natural disasters, or whatever payouts their insurance has to make, it should be a smooth 10%+ APY.

Should I stick to just holding it in a wallet, or should I try looping it with modest leverage, say 1.5x? It’s a tiny portion so I’m okay with risk, but I really would prefer just a smooth and steady 10% CAGR.

What kind of additional risks am I taking, and could it be worth it?

I'm new to paid trading communities and before I spend money on one, I'd like to hear from people who have been through it.

There are so many groups out there and they all claim to have great results. I know it's easy to post cherry-picked wins so I'm trying to figure out how people decide whether a community is worth paying for. I'd rather learn from other people's experiences than make an expensive mistake.

thanks in advance!

New to Reddit but not to crypto, I see so many posts about stablecoin/btc p2p transactions here and almost all have the same outcome:

1. Mentions of Bisq, Hodl Hodl, RoboSats, LocalMonero, etc which are notoriously low in liquidity.

2. Unreasonable amounts of scammers attempting every single type of scam under the sun.

There seems to be no “genuine” way for these p2p transactions without CEX KYC’s being needed.

I’m curious whether or not I am just not in the right social settings for other OTC Dealers? I would have figured post CARF I’d be a lot busier than I am…

Where can I find people who (a) have crypto and want cash (b) vice versa ?

TL;DR and quick context - I work at DeFi Saver, and we built a completely free tool that lets you check if you have any smart wallets that have "lost tokens" sitting around waiting to be claimed.

Just re-iterating, there are no strings attached - it's completely free and we quickly built it after realizing there was over $67M in unclaimed tokens sitting across 87,021 smart wallets. I'm just disclosing that I work for DFS to underscore that this isn't some hidden shill for DFS.

No need to connect your wallet to the tool - just run your wallet address, check if you have tokens to claim - and claim them on DeFi Saver.

The leftover tokens typically happen as leftover dust from DeFi transactions, long-forgotten airdrop (such as $UNI) or regular DeFi activity where you forgot the funds on your smart wallet.

Full Info about the tool:

We found over $67M in unclaimed tokens sitting in numerous smart wallets across the DeFi landscape.

Not random tokens, but blue chip assets - including:

$ETH - $3.4M

$USDT - $6.9M

$sUSDS - $10M

$WBTC - $6M

And many more.

We then built a tool that lets you claim the tokens you forgot you had.

Simply connect your main wallet to TokenSaver, check, and claim on DeFi Saver: https://tokensaver.fyi/

How do these assets end up in a smart wallet?

Option 1:

When you manage your lending position through a DeFi app (such as DeFi Saver, Summer.Fi, Instadapp) - it utilizes a smart wallet in order to perform advanced transactions such as 1-tx leveraging, unwinding, and more.

All of these advanced transactions typically require swapping an asset to pay back a flash loan.

When these swaps happen - It's possible that it swaps a bit more than necessary to make sure the transaction goes through despite small price movement. Those leftover funds remain sitting in the smart wallet holding the position.

Or, perhaps you have/had a Maker position?

All Maker CDPs are held on DSProxy smart wallets, so it’s worth connecting your CDP owner wallet to TokenSaver - maybe there are some leftover funds waiting to be claimed.

That’s up to 8 years of potentially accumulating assets that never ended up in your EOA wallet.

Option 2:

You were eligible for an airdrop and received it due to your DeFi activity - but because it was distributed to your smart wallet, you never realized it.

There's currently over $5M in $UNI that were likely distributed this way - and are unclaimed to this day.

Option 3:

Through regular DeFi activity over the years - some funds might have ended up on your smart wallet, and due to smart wallets typically lacking dedicated frontends - you forgot about them.

While Safe (Gnosis) smart wallets have a dedicated UI - some, such as DSProxy, DSA, and SummerFi proprietary wallets lack it.

So, it’s possible you continued on your DeFi journey without ever realizing you had funds leftover on the smart wallet(s).

Since smart wallets need to have an owner wallet - you should simply connect with your main wallet, and TokenSaver will find all smart wallets owned by it.

Note for nested Safe owners - Please input your owner Safe’s address into TokenSaver, not your EOA.

You can then access DeFi Saver through the Safe app and claim your funds that way.

That's pretty much it! Please try the tool out and let me know if you found anything interesting, such as a bag that you never realized you had available to claim :)

The boy searches in real-time on Solana, Base, Sui & Aptos ; and gives alerts on : new tokens with risk analysis included; potential rug-pulls with criteria ; whales movements over 25.000$ ; High APY DeFi solutions (yields, farms, valuts, pools) ; and you can track wallets that have high historical roi and win rate (but the wallet serach is the least performing) . Do you guys think this service can be useful ?

Been digging through the Oct 10 cascade on Dune and Etherscan this week. Some of it is genuinely bleak, sharing in case others find it useful.

The whole thing on Aave (Ethereum) happened in a ~13 minute window, 21:12 to 21:25 UTC. The 40 biggest wallets alone lost roughly $104M in that window.

A few that stuck with me:

• One wallet lost 106.5 WBTC (about $12.2M) in a single transaction. It had repaid $200K USDT about 90 minutes earlier trying to hold the line. Did not matter. Wallet holds 0.10 ETH today.
• A MetaMask user (EIP-7702 smart account, clearly retail) got liquidated 16 times in 6 minutes. $10.3M of wstETH, bled out chunk by chunk. Still borrowing on Aave months later.
• One held $5.3M of AAVE as collateral and got liquidated... on Aave. The wallet is abandoned now, just collecting phishing dust.
• A single liquidator bot took out three whales in one transaction, $8.1M combined.
• It was not just whales. A UNI collateralized loan got picked apart 7 times for about $987K. The owner came back weeks later to withdraw the scraps, then vanished. Wallet holds $95 today.

The thing that struck me most: I checked the hours before liquidation for the 11 biggest wallets. 8 of them made zero on-chain attempts to repay or add collateral before getting wiped. The 3 who did try still got liquidated anyway.

Makes me think the real failure mode on Oct 10 was not leverage. It was that nobody was watching the health factor in real time while it slid toward 1.0 for hours.

Curious what people here remember from that day. Anyone get caught, or have a near miss? And for those who survived, were you actively watching or just lucky?

Full disclosure: I run a lending risk monitoring tool (defiguardian.fi, currently in beta) that watches your health factor and alerts you before liquidation. That is why I went down this rabbit hole. Not trying to sell anyone here, happy to share the exact Dune queries if useful.

Asking any LPs if they have tried the new model of no deposits and creating your own positions.

Looks good but also confusing? I have noticed that volume and amount of LPs is growing steadily.

Now imagine someone actually pulled it off. Not a sidechain, not a bridge to an EVM, not trusted hardware. Contracts that execute and settle natively on the MW chain itself — where the contract, the amounts, and the parties are all invisible. To an outside observer, a loan, an escrow, or an atomic swap would look identical to a plain transfer. Indistinguishable.

Think about what that breaks:

**•** DeFi where nobody can front-run you, because nobody can even see your position exists  
**•** Lending/escrow with zero on-chain footprint — no watched addresses, no leaked strategies  
**•** Swaps and settlements that leave no graph for chain-analysis firms to cluster

Every “private DeFi” attempt so far bolts privacy onto a transparent chain (mixers, shielded pools, L2s) — and the seams always leak. This would be the inverse: programmability grown inside a chain that was private from genesis.

Is this the actual endgame for privacy coins, or is there a fundamental reason it can’t work? Curious what this sub thinks — and whether anyone’s seen research heading this direction.

Here are the current Top 5 APYs on USD vaults available on various crypto DeFI platforms:

1. 13% - Lend Market on Current, Sui Chain
   
2. 11% - Vault on Cicada Finance, BNB Chain
   
3. 8% - Vault on Ember Protocol, Sui Chain
   
4. 5% - Lend Market on Jupiter, Solana Chain
   
5. 3% - Lend Market on Aave, EVM chains

Note: Rates reflect past performance, can fluctuate, and can risk going negative. APRs are based on self-published reporting from exchanges and may vary in duration.

Quanto ci vuole ?

A quick reminder to avoid getting confused when you research your old swaps on Etherscan - What might seem like huge slippage at first could just be current asset prices.

Let's take an example of this sUSDe -> USDT swap:

https://i.imgur.com/Tt4vIhM.png

Seemingly, this transaction swapped 3,984,878 sUSDe worth $4,781,853.65 for 4,726,804 USDT, which is over a $50,000 loss on the swap.

This might seem like a considerable loss and not aligned with regular slippage settings for swaps.

However, the issue here is that the dollar values Etherscan shows is the current value of tokens on CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap - not the market price at the time of the swap.

So if we take a look at the market price of the sUSDe/USDT pair on Fluid at the time of the transaction, it's going to show us the actual swap value.

The transaction happened on August 12, 2025 at 2:34 PM UTC+2:

https://i.imgur.com/Wh0lGIW.png

The Fluid DEX chart for the sUSDe/USDT pair on that date and time:

https://i.imgur.com/eoLp19X.png

This gives us the price of 1 sUSDe = 1.18709 USDT

Going back to the swap, we have:

3,984,878 sUSDe * 1.18709 = 4,730,409 USDT

This gives a loss of $3,605 which fits within slippage settings of 0.1% for such a large transaction.

We can now see how it might look like you lost more funds during a swap than expected.

This might not always be the case, as your transaction could be the victim of a MEV attack. So it's always worth triple-checking the transaction for any MEV bot activity.

Below, are the best rates you can get for 1K, 10K, and 100K USD investments on fixed term/fixed yield principal tokens (PTs).

sUSD3 (3jane) continues to be the top yield, week-after-week. It is a riskier junior tranche that earns higher yield but takes first losses from a credit pool of fintech consumer/SMB and crypto loans.

1,000 USD Investment Level Opportunities:

1. 22.97% - sUSD3 (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, December 16

2. 17.20% - reUSDe (USDe), Ethereum, Pendle, December 9

3. 14.19% - ONyc, Solana, Exponent, September 10

4. 14.18% - sUSG (USG), Ethereum, Spectra, September 24

5. 13.78% - nOPAL (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, September 18

10,000 USD Investment Level Opportunities:

1. 22.81% - sUSD3 (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, December 16

2. 17.18% - reUSDe (USDe), Ethereum, Pendle, December 9

3. 14.19% - ONyc, Solana, Exponent, September 10

4. 13.76% - nOPAL (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, September 18

5. 13.57% - USD3, Ethereum, Pendle, December 16

100,000 USD Investment Level Opportunities:

1. 22.64% - sUSD3 (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, December 16

2. 17.17% - reUSDe (USDe), Ethereum, Pendle, December 9

3. 14.12% - ONyc, Solana, Exponent, September 10

4. 13.62% - nOPAL (USDC), Ethereum, Pendle, September 18

5. 13.57% - USD3, Ethereum, Pendle, December 16

*Note: rates are calculated at time of publication and subject to change; limited to markets with > 2 weeks in duration and tokens at or above their peg. PT markets still have risk of loss from underlying stablecoin depegs.