Understanding Liquidity Mining and the Evolution of DeFi Protocols
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Understanding Liquidity Mining and the Evolution of DeFi Protocols
From the evolution of liquidity mining models in DeFi protocols to the adoption of centralized elements.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: DeSpread Research
Disclaimer: The content of this report reflects the views of the respective authors and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute advice to buy or sell tokens or use protocols. Nothing in this report constitutes investment advice, nor should it be construed as such.
1. Introduction
Decentralized Finance (DeFi) is a new form of finance aiming to enable trustless, intermediary-free transactions through blockchain and smart contracts, increase access to financial services in regions lacking financial infrastructure, and disrupt the traditional financial system by enhancing transparency and efficiency. The origins of DeFi can be traced back to Bitcoin, developed by Satoshi Nakamoto.
During the 2008 global financial crisis, Satoshi became uneasy about the repeated bank failures and government bailouts. He believed that overreliance on trusted institutions, opacity, and inefficiency were fundamental flaws in the centralized financial system. To address these issues, Satoshi created Bitcoin—a system for value transfer and payments in a decentralized environment. In Bitcoin’s genesis block, he embedded the message “The Times, January 3, 2009, Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks,” signaling the problems Bitcoin aimed to solve and the need for decentralized finance.
Bitcoin's genesis block and front page of The Times, source:phuzion7 steemit
Later, the emergence of Ethereum in 2015 and the introduction of smart contracts gave rise to a series of DeFi protocols. These protocols now offer financial services like token swaps and lending without intermediaries, continuously experimenting and researching around Satoshi’s vision of "decentralized finance." Through their interoperability—akin to “MoneyLegos”—these protocols have formed a vast ecosystem, enabling a wide range of financial transactions beyond what Bitcoin could achieve, and demonstrating the possibility of blockchain replacing trusted institutions in traditional finance.
However, much of the liquidity growth in the DeFi market so far has stemmed not from decentralization or financial innovation, but from yields offered by protocols to liquidity providers. In particular, through their tokenomics and so-called "Yield Farming," these protocols provided users with incentives far exceeding those in traditional finance, effectively attracting many users and playing a major role in bringing liquidity into the DeFi market.
As users increasingly focus on higher yields, DeFi protocols’ revenue models have evolved from their original design—from initially being built around the core value of “providing intermediary-free financial services” to now adapting to market demands for “consistently delivering stable and high returns.” Recently, some protocols have even adopted centralized elements, using real-world assets as collateral or executing trades via centralized exchanges (CEXs), then distributing the resulting yields to users.
In this article, we will explore various mechanisms and the evolution of DeFi, gaining deeper insight into the challenges these protocols face and their partial adoption of centralized elements.
2. Yield Farming and DeFi Summer
Early DeFi protocols on the Ethereum network focused on replicating traditional financial systems on blockchain. Thus, aside from changing the transaction environment via blockchain and removing service providers—allowing anyone to become a liquidity provider—early DeFi protocols generated revenue and structured themselves similarly to traditional finance.
-
Decentralized Exchanges (DEX): Like currency and stock exchanges, they generate income through trading fees. Users receive a portion of each token trade fee, which is distributed to liquidity providers.
-
Lending Protocols: Similar to banks, they earn income from interest rate spreads between depositors and borrowers or from margin. Depositors supply assets to the protocol and earn interest, while borrowers provide collateral to borrow and pay interest.
Then, in June 2020, the flagship lending protocol Compound launched its Liquidity Mining initiative, attracting market liquidity around the time of Bitcoin’s halving by issuing governance token $COMP to liquidity providers and lenders, causing a surge in liquidity and borrowing demand on Compound.
Compound TVL trend, source:Defi Llama
Following Compound’s lead, DeFi protocols began shifting away from simply distributing protocol revenues to liquidity providers. Other early projects such as Aave and Uniswap started issuing their own tokens to offer rewards beyond protocol earnings. This ushered in massive user and liquidity inflows into the DeFi ecosystem, leading to the well-known “DeFi Summer” across the entire Ethereum network.
3. Limitations of Yield Farming and Improvements in Tokenomics
Yield farming significantly boosted DeFi protocol liquidity and expanded user bases by providing strong incentives for both service providers and users. However, the additional yield generated early on had several limitations:
-
Tokens issued had limited utility, primarily restricted to governance, thus lacking buy-side pressure.
-
Declining token prices led to lower yield farming rates.
These limitations made it difficult to sustain the liquidity and traffic attracted through yield farming. Subsequent DeFi protocols attempted to build tokenomic models that could provide liquidity providers with extra returns beyond protocol revenue, while also maintaining long-term liquidity. Many protocols tied their token value to protocol revenue and offered ongoing incentives to token holders, thereby improving stability and sustainability.
Curve Finance and Olympus DAO are two prime examples of this approach.
3.1. Curve Finance
Curve Finance is a DEX specialized in low-slippage trading for stablecoins. Curve offers $CRV tokens and trading fees from liquidity pools as yield farming rewards. However, to enhance sustainability, Curve introduced the “veTokenomics” system.
Detailed Explanation of veTokenomics
-
Liquidity providers receive only 50% of trading fees. Instead of selling $CRV earned from yield farming, they lock it into Curve Finance for a set period (up to 4 years) to receive $veCRV.
-
$veCRV holders receive 50% of trading fees generated by Curve Finance and can further boost yield farming rewards by voting on which liquidity pools get additional incentives.
By incentivizing liquidity providers to lock up $CRV long-term, Curve reduces sell pressure. Additionally, by introducing voting rights that allow certain pools to earn more rewards, Curve increases demand among projects seeking to provide liquidity on Curve to buy and hold $CRV.
As a result, the $CRV lock-up ratio rapidly grew, reaching 40% within a year and a half and remaining stable since.
$CRV lock-up ratio trend, source:@blockworks_research Dune Dashboard
Curve Finance’s mechanism is seen as an effective attempt—not just offering high short-term yields, but also pursuing sustainability by tightly integrating its token with protocol mechanics—becoming an inspiration for many subsequent DeFi protocols’ tokenomic designs.
3.2. Olympus DAO
Olympus DAO is a protocol aiming to create a treasury-backed token. It accepts user liquidity deposits to build and manage a treasury, issuing its protocol token $OHM proportionally to the treasury size. During $OHM issuance, Olympus DAO introduced a unique “bonding” mechanism allowing users to deposit LP tokens containing $OHM and mint corresponding bonds.
Tokenomics Details
-
Users can deposit single assets (e.g., Ethereum, stablecoins) or OHM-asset LP tokens and receive discounted OHM bonds in return. Olympus DAO manages these assets through governance to generate returns.
-
By staking $OHM, holders receive a share of treasury growth in the form of additional $OHM tokens.
Through this mechanism, Olympus DAO supplied ample $OHM to the market while directly holding LP tokens representing liquidity pool ownership—preventing the issue of traditional liquidity providers withdrawing liquidity for short-term gains. Early on, massive inflows boosted the treasury, and during the process of issuing more $OHM to stakers, annual percentage yields (APY) exceeded 7,000%, sustained for about six months.
Olympus DAO staking APY, source: @shadow Dune Dashboard
These high yields incentivized users to keep depositing assets into Olympus DAO’s treasury to mint $OHM, triggering a wave of DeFi protocols adopting the Olympus DAO model in 2021.
4. DeFi Bear Market and the Rise of Real Yield
The rise of DeFi protocols pushed total DeFi TVL (Total Value Locked) to unprecedented highs in November 2021. However, the market soon entered a correction phase, liquidity inflows slowed, and eventually, the collapse of the Terra-Luna ecosystem in May 2022 triggered a full-blown bear market. This reduced overall market liquidity, dampened investor sentiment, and negatively impacted early and second-generation DeFi protocols like Curve Finance and Olympus DAO.
Overall DeFi TVL trend, source: Defi Llama
While the tokenomic models adopted by these protocols partially addressed the lack of utility in their native tokens, they still faced the issue where token value affected liquidity provider yields. Especially in volatile market conditions with sharply declining investor sentiment, protocol earnings failed to keep pace with continuous token inflation, revealing structural limitations.
Thus, declining token values and protocol revenues accelerated capital outflows, creating a vicious cycle that made it difficult for protocols to generate stable income and offer attractive yields. In this context, DeFi protocols capable of significantly limiting native token inflation while sustainably generating protocol income—“Real Yield” protocols—emerged as a new focal point.
4.1. GMX
One of the most prominent real yield DeFi protocols is the GMX Protocol, a decentralized perpetual exchange built on Arbitrum and Avalanche networks.
GMX has two tokens: $GLP and $GMX, operating as follows:
-
Liquidity providers deposit assets like $ETH, $BTC, $USDC, $USDT into GMX and receive $GLP tokens as proof of liquidity provision. $GLP holders receive 70% of the revenue generated by the GMX protocol.
-
$GMX is GMX’s governance token. Stakers receive discounts on GMX trading fees and linearly earn 30% of protocol revenue over one year.
Instead of offering extra rewards through token inflation, GMX chooses to distribute a portion of protocol-generated revenue to its token holders. This provides clear incentives for buying and holding $GMX, ensuring holders don’t dump tokens for profit or face devaluation due to inflation during market downturns.
If we examine GMX’s revenue and $GMX price trends, we see that $GMX value fluctuates in line with GMX protocol revenue.
GMX protocol revenue and token price trend, source: Defi Llama
However, compared to traditional models, this structure allocates part of the fees owed to liquidity providers to governance token holders, which is less favorable to LPs and suboptimal for attracting initial liquidity. Additionally, when distributing governance token $GMX, GMX focused on airdropping to Arbitrum and Avalanche DeFi users to promote adoption among potential users, rather than using liquidity mining to quickly gain liquidity.
Despite this, GMX remains the highest-TVl derivatives DeFi protocol and one of the few platforms to maintain its TVL after the Luna-Terra collapse and subsequent bear market.
GMX protocol TVL trend, source: Defi Llama
Despite being less LP-friendly structurally, GMX has performed exceptionally well for several reasons:
-
As a perpetual exchange launched during Arbitrum’s peak, it gained first-mover advantage in capturing Arbitrum’s liquidity and user traffic.
-
After FTX’s collapse in December 2022, declining confidence in centralized exchanges increased demand for on-chain alternatives.
GMX leveraged these external factors to offset its structural disadvantages, making it difficult for later protocols to replicate its success in attracting liquidity and users.
On the other hand, early DeFi DEX Uniswap is currently discussing introducing a Fee Switch mechanism to distribute protocol revenue to $UNI token holders and liquidity providers—previously rewarded via yield farming. This suggests Uniswap is exploring a transition to a real yield model. However, this is only feasible because Uniswap, as an early project, already possesses substantial liquidity and trading volume.
From GMX and Uniswap, we observe that adopting real yield—distributing protocol revenue to both LPs and token holders—must be carefully considered based on a protocol’s maturity and market position. Under this model, ensuring liquidity remains the biggest challenge, explaining why early-stage projects haven’t widely adopted it.
5. RWA: Integrating Traditional Financial Instruments into DeFi
During the prolonged bear market, attracting limited liquidity through tokenomics while ensuring sustainable protocol revenue remains the biggest challenge for DeFi protocols.
In September 2022, Ethereum transitioned from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) via The Merge, prompting the emergence of liquid staking protocols that help users participate in Ethereum staking and earn interest. This change established a baseline ~3% yield on Ethereum, forcing new DeFi protocols to offer sustainable yields to attract liquidity and maintain their ecosystems.
In this context, protocols based on Real World Assets (RWA) began emerging. By linking traditional financial instruments to blockchain and generating yield off-chain, these protocols naturally became sustainable-yield alternatives within the DeFi ecosystem.
RWA refers to any traditional financial instrument tokenized and linked to blockchain, enabling users to utilize them on-chain. These bridge-building protocols benefit in the following ways:
-
More transparent recording of asset ownership and transaction history than traditional systems.
-
Enhanced financial inclusivity by removing geographical, status-based, and other barriers.
-
Flexible and efficient transaction formats, such as micro-splitting or integration with DeFi protocols.
These advantages have led to a wide range of RWA applications, including bonds, stocks, real estate, and unsecured loans. Among these, tokenized U.S. Treasuries have drawn the most attention, satisfying user demand for stable value and yield.
Currently, around $1.57 billion in tokenized U.S. Treasury assets exist on-chain. With global asset managers like BlackRock and Franklin Templeton entering the space, RWA has become a key component of the DeFi market.
Market cap trend of tokenized U.S. Treasury instruments, source:rwa.xyz
Next, we’ll examine DeFi protocols using RWA to generate yield for users.
5.1. Goldfinch
Goldfinch is a lending protocol pioneering the integration of DeFi with traditional financial products since July 2020. Using its proprietary credit scoring system, Goldfinch provides uncollateralized crypto loans to real businesses worldwide, primarily in developing countries across Asia, Africa, and South America. It has deployed and managed approximately $76 million in capital to date.
Goldfinch operates two distinct loan pools:
-
Junior Pool: Formed when borrowers apply and pass underwriting. Verified entities such as professional investment firms and credit analysts deposit funds to lend to these borrowers. In case of default, the Junior Pool absorbs losses first.
-
Senior Pool: A single pool whose positions are diversified across all Junior Pools, prioritizing principal protection but offering lower returns than the Junior Pool.
After completing KYC, users can deposit $USDC into the Senior Pool to receive a share of yield generated by Goldfinch’s credit-backed lending, along with $FIDU tokens as liquidity proof. When exiting, users can only redeem $USDC if idle funds exist in the Senior Pool; otherwise, they can sell $FIDU on DEXs to achieve the same effect. Conversely, users can buy $FIDU on DEXs—without KYC—to gain exposure to Goldfinch’s yield.
Initially, Goldfinch distributed its governance token $GFI via yield farming, attracting significant liquidity. Even after yield farming ended and the market slumped post-Luna-Terra, Goldfinch continued generating stable net income from external sources, offering liquidity providers a steady ~8% projected yield.
However, since August 2023, Goldfinch has experienced three defaults, exposing weaknesses in credit assessment and lack of updated loan information, raising questions about protocol sustainability. In response, liquidity providers began selling their $FIDU tokens. Despite the protocol generating income—which should support $FIDU’s price—the token has remained at $0.6 as of June 2024, down from $1.
5.2. MakerDAO
MakerDAO is one of the earliest Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) protocols in the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem, designed to issue and provide a stable-value stablecoin $DAI backed by collateral to counter extreme volatility in crypto markets.
Users can deposit virtual assets like Ethereum as collateral with MakerDAO and receive $DAI in return. MakerDAO continuously monitors collateral value fluctuations to assess collateral ratios and liquidates collateral if ratios fall below thresholds, maintaining reserve stability.
MakerDAO has two primary revenue streams:
-
Stability Fee: Paid by users who deposit collateral and mint/borrow $DAI.
-
Liquidation Fee: Charged when a $DAI issuer’s collateral is forcibly liquidated due to falling below required value levels.
MakerDAO incentivizes $DAI holders by paying these fees as interest to users who deposit $DAI into its Deposit Savings Rate (DSR) contract. Any surplus capital is used to buy and burn MakerDAO’s governance token $MKR, incentivizing $MKR holders.
5.2.1. Endgame and RWA Integration
In May 2022, MakerDAO co-founder Rune Christensen introduced the “Endgame” plan, outlining his vision for true decentralization in MakerDAO’s governance and operations, and long-term $DAI stability.
For further reading on “Endgame,” see DeSpread’s Endgame Series.
One key challenge highlighted in Endgame is diversifying MakerDAO’s current $ETH-heavy collateral base. To address this, MakerDAO announced plans to integrate RWA as collateral, achieving the following benefits:
-
RWAs exhibit different price volatility characteristics from crypto assets, enabling portfolio diversification.
-
RWA backed by real-world assets helps reduce friction with regulators and builds institutional investor trust.
-
RWA strengthens MakerDAO’s connection to the real economy, ensuring $DAI’s long-term stability and growth beyond the chain.
After the Endgame proposal passed, MakerDAO’s structure evolved as shown below:
Post-Endgame, MakerDAO diversified its portfolio by incorporating various RWAs—including short-term U.S. Treasuries, real estate-backed loans, tokenized real estate, and credit-backed assets. Because RWA-derived yields depend on external factors like Treasury rates and off-chain lending rates, MakerDAO reduced its exposure to crypto market volatility while securing a stable return stream.
As a result, in 2023, despite the broader DeFi ecosystem enduring a bear market, MakerDAO’s RWA-backed assets consistently generated stable yields, accounting for 70% of total protocol revenue. Based on these earnings, MakerDAO raised and maintained the DSR rate from 1% to 5%, effectively supporting demand for $DAI.
In this way, MakerDAO evolved from a protocol issuing stablecoins backed by on-chain assets to one engaging with real-world finance, diversifying revenue sources and strengthening ties to the real economy. This ensured protocol sustainability and long-term growth, positioning MakerDAO as a leading RWA protocol and charting a new path for integrating traditional finance with DeFi.
6. Basis Trading: Leveraging CEX Liquidity
In Q4 2023, anticipating the approval of spot Bitcoin ETFs, external liquidity began flowing back into the market after nearly two years of stagnation. This prompted the DeFi ecosystem to move beyond traditional passive management, leveraging incoming liquidity and native token incentives to offer higher yields and attract new capital.
Unlike early projects, these newer protocols avoided initial yield farming, instead opting for points-based airdrop models to extend the gap between liquidity provision and token distribution, allowing teams better control over token circulation.
Some protocols rapidly attracted massive liquidity through “restaking” models—staking tokens already locked in other protocols to layer risk and generate additional income.
Although the crypto market showed signs of recovery post-Luna-Terra, the high barrier to entry into on-chain environments meant most market liquidity and user traffic remained concentrated on centralized exchanges (CEXs), not DeFi protocols.
Notably, CEXs offer users a more familiar and simpler trading experience, causing on-chain perpetual exchange volumes to drop to roughly 1/100th of CEX futures volumes. This environment fueled the rise of basis trading models—protocols that generate extra income by exploiting CEX trading volume and traffic.
Comparison of CEX vs DEX futures volumes, source: The Block
Basis trading models use user-deposited assets to create positions that capture price differences—between spot and futures or among futures—on CEXs, generating income distributed to liquidity providers. Compared to RWA models that derive income directly from traditional finance, these models benefit from fewer regulatory constraints, allowing greater freedom in protocol design and more aggressive market strategies.
Previously, custodians like Celsius and BlockFi used leverage on user-deposited assets on CEXs to generate and distribute income. However, due to opaque fund management and excessive leveraged investments, Celsius collapsed after the 2022 market crash, eroding trust in custodial models, which gradually faded from view.
Therefore, recently emerged basis trading protocols strive to operate more transparently than traditional custodians, implementing various mechanisms to bolster credibility and stability.
Next, we examine protocols using basis trading to deliver yield to users.
6.1. Ethena
Ethena is a protocol issuing a dollar-pegged synthetic asset $USDe. It hedges its collateral assets on CEXs to maintain a constant collateral ratio regardless of asset value fluctuations, staying Delta Neutral. This allows Ethena to issue dollar-denominated assets equivalent to its collateral, unaffected by market volatility.
User deposits on Ethena are allocated via Off-Exchange Settlement (OES) providers into forms such as $BTC, $ETH, interest-bearing Ethereum LST tokens, and $USDT. Ethena then opens short positions on CEXs equivalent to its $BTC and $ETH spot holdings to hedge and maintain delta neutrality.
Ethena collateral allocation, source: Ethena
During USDe collateralization, Ethena earns two types of returns:
-
LST Interest: Interest from Ethereum validator rewards, maintaining an annual yield above 3% and increasing with Ethereum ecosystem activity. This generates ~0.4% annual return on total spot collateral.
-
Funding Fees: Fees paid by users holding overheated positions to those holding opposite positions, bridging the spot-futures price gap on CEXs. (Given long positions are uncapped and structurally disadvantaged, longs typically pay shorts a base funding rate of 0.01% every 8 hours.) Currently, Ethereum’s short positions earn ~8% annually on open interest.
Beyond distributing basis trading income to $USDe holders, Ethena is conducting its second $ENA governance token airdrop. During this phase, Ethena allocates more points to $ENA holders than $USDe stakers, concentrating protocol income among fewer stakers and pushing $USDe staking yields to ~17% as of June 20, 2024.
Additionally, by announcing future airdrops for $ENA stakers, Ethena mitigates sell pressure on $ENA and attracts early liquidity. These efforts have led to the issuance of ~$3.6 billion in $USDe, making it the fastest stablecoin to reach a $3 billion market cap.
Time taken for stablecoins to reach $3B market cap, source:@leptokurtic_ on X
6.1.1. Limitations and Roadmap
While Ethena achieved notable success in acquiring initial liquidity, it faces the following limitations from a sustainability perspective:
-
Once points campaigns end, demand for Ethena may decline, reducing staking income.
-
Funding fee yields are variable, fluctuating with market conditions—and likely to decrease during bear markets when short positions increase.
-
Currently, the sole reason to stake $ENA in Ethena is to earn additional $ENA, potentially leading to massive sell-offs post-airdrop.
To prevent liquidity loss from $USDe and $ENA, Ethena recently announced a partnership with staking protocol Symbiotic—the first step toward enhancing utility for both tokens by restaking $USDe and $ENA on PoS middleware protocols requiring security budgets to earn additional income.
Below is Ethena’s current architecture:
Ethena addresses transparency issues of legacy custodians primarily by publicly disclosing OES provider wallet addresses and publishing regular reports on positions and asset holdings to prove stability. Furthermore, Ethena plans to use ZK technology to enable real-time verification of all assets held via OES providers, further enhancing transparency.
6.2. BounceBit
BounceBit is a PoS Layer 1 network that uses user-bridged assets to run delta-neutral positions on centralized exchanges (CEXs), generating additional income. Since June 2024, users can bridge two assets from other networks to BounceBit: $BTCB and $USDT.
User-bridged assets are deployed via asset management entities to conduct basis trading on CEXs. BounceBit issues 1:1 liquid custody tokens $BBTC and $BBUSD on its network as proof of staked assets. Users can stake $BBTC with BounceBit’s native token $BB to assist network validation, receiving liquidity tokens $stBBTC and $stBB, plus interest paid in $BB.
Users can also restake $stBBTC via Shared Security Clients (SSCs) partnered with BounceBit to earn additional income, or deposit into the Premium Yield Generation Vault to receive returns from BounceBit’s basis trading. Currently, SSC restaking is not yet live; only the Premium Vault offers extra yield.
BounceBit user fund flow diagram, source: BounceBit Docs
When users deposit into the Premium Yield Generation Vault, they can choose which of five partner asset managers receives their yield. These managers use BounceBit’s bridged assets on CEXs via MirrorX—a feature enabling trade execution without physically depositing assets onto CEXs. BounceBit also regularly publishes asset status reports to ensure stability and transparency of bridged assets.
BounceBit Premium Yield Generation Vault partners, source: BounceBit
Currently, BounceBit offers a maximum yield of 16%, comprising 4% network staking interest and 12% from the Premium Yield Generation Vault—remarkably high for BTC-based products. However, the sustainability of these yields remains to be seen, as staking rewards fluctuate with $BB’s price and basis trading returns depend on market conditions.
Compared to the DeFi ecosystem, protocols adopting this emerging basis trading model leverage CEX trading volume and liquidity to generate stable income—a critical component of protocol revenue stability. Moreover, these protocols actively employ DeFi strategies—such as liquidity tokenization (enabling cross-protocol use) and native token issuance—to offer users additional returns.
7. Conclusion
In this article, we explored the evolution of revenue models in the DeFi ecosystem and examined how protocols adopt elements like RWA and basis trading to maintain yield and liquidity. Given that RWA and basis trading models are still in early adoption stages, we can expect their influence within the DeFi ecosystem to grow.
Although RWA and basis trading models incorporate centralized elements, their shared goal is to bring external assets and liquidity into DeFi protocols. In the future, advancements in on-ramp and off-ramp solutions, along with developments centered on cross-chain interoperability, may replace these centralized components, enhancing convenience for DeFi users and driving continued innovation in new DeFi protocols as blockchain usage grows.
While these centralized elements currently dominate the DeFi ecosystem—seeming contradictory to Satoshi’s original intent with Bitcoin—we can understand DeFi’s evolution as natural, given that modern finance itself evolved on the foundation of capital efficiency.
As DeFi moves toward centralization, we will also continue to see protocols emphasizing decentralization principles emerge—such as Reflexer, a stablecoin protocol not pegged to the dollar and featuring an independent price formation system. These protocols will complement those adopting centralized elements, creating balance within the DeFi ecosystem.
We can look forward to a more mature and efficient financial system, and await how blockchain finance—epitomized by “DeFi”—will evolve and redefine itself in the future.
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@DeSpreadTeam
