Space Recap | With frequent DeFi failures, how has the TRON ecosystem become a benchmark for stable returns?

Recently, the DeFi sector has witnessed several noteworthy security incidents, including project collapses, chain liquidations, oracle manipulation, and liquidity shortages. Market sentiment has shifted towards caution and self-preservation. Against this backdrop, DeFi is no longer merely synonymous with technological innovation and wealth growth, but has become a testing ground where risks intertwine and vulnerabilities are exposed.

It is during this period of industry reflection that SunPump hosted a new round of the SunFlash online dialogue. This roundtable discussion focused on the pressing issue of "Frequent DeFi failures: How to balance risk hedging and asset allocation?" Several seasoned industry KOLs were invited to attempt to cut through the market noise and return to the essence of the discussion: Are these risk events accidental, or are they inevitable systemic growing pains accompanying DeFi's current stage of development? Under multiple risks, how should users and institutions build their own defense systems? More importantly, after repeated collapses of trust, does DeFi still possess the ability to rebuild credibility, and what path will it take towards a more stable and sustainable future?

DeFi Failures: Governance Grievances and Systemic Risks Under the Illusion of High Returns

Behind the recent series of defaults in the DeFi sector, several seasoned practitioners and researchers gathered at Space to discuss its root causes. Despite differing perspectives, the panelists generally agreed that these events were not isolated technical malfunctions, but rather a concentrated outbreak of structural risks accumulated during the industry's rapid development. Among these, governance vulnerabilities stemming from "pseudo-decentralization" and unsustainable high-yield models were repeatedly mentioned, considered two core risk points.

Mr. Miss pointed out that many failed projects masquerade as "decentralized," but their core authority, such as fund allocation and contract control, is often highly concentrated in the hands of a few team members. He cited examples of projects that didn't even employ basic multi-signature mechanisms; once internal problems arose, power could easily be abused, leading to collapse. This "pseudo-decentralization" means the project is essentially centralized, but it uses the "transparency" of blockchain to lower investors' guard.

RIVER and Zane strongly agreed, adding that such governance vulnerabilities might be masked during periods of market stability, but would be fully exposed in the event of extreme market conditions or malicious attacks. 0xPink aptly summarized that while the contracts appear open-source and governed by the community, the core liquidation and oracle logic remains in the hands of a few, and the entire system could instantly fail due to team errors or malicious manipulation.

On the other hand, unsustainable high-yield models are another extremely high source of risk. Mr. Mease questioned, "Where does the money come from for annualized returns of 100% or 200%?" He pointed out that such high returns often rely on a continuous inflow of new funds, and once market sentiment cools and liquidity declines, the fragile return model will amplify the risks infinitely.

Finally, several guests emphasized that the risks of DeFi are not isolated, single-point problems, but rather highly contagious. 0xPink pointed out that the collapse of one protocol can trigger liquidations, which in turn can spread to its associated collateralized assets and other protocols, creating a chain reaction similar to a bank run in traditional finance. Within this seemingly high-tech financial system, the centralized governance, the unsustainable yield model, and the pervasive presence of leverage have collectively constructed a high-yield yet extremely fragile system.

Finding Certainty Amidst Uncertainty: A Stable Return Strategy for the TRON Ecosystem

Faced with on-chain risks that cannot be completely eliminated, how should individual users and institutional investors build their own "defenses" to hedge risks and balance returns? In the second session of this Space, the guests provided comprehensive strategies from basic to advanced, and their core consensus can be summarized as: through sound investment strategies and dynamic monitoring, uncontrollable systemic risks can be brought under control.

For ordinary users, the guests unanimously emphasized the most basic and effective principle: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Both RIVER and Teacher 77 suggested allocating the majority of assets to mainstream stablecoins (such as USDT and USDC) and core assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, using only a small portion (e.g., 10%-20% of total funds) to try new high-yield projects. This serves as a "trial and error" cost, ensuring that even if losses occur, they won't be crippling.

When discussing specific investment strategies, 0xPink specifically used the TRON ecosystem as an example, proposing a feasible solution that balances stability and returns . He first affirmed the transparency advantage of over-collateralized stablecoins within the ecosystem, such as USDD, which are "verifiable on-chain." Furthermore, he considered TRON's platform token, TRX, itself as a "core asset" worth holding, pointing out that its rise this year has brought decent and stable returns. By combining stablecoins, platform tokens, and stable interest-bearing protocols within the TRON ecosystem, users can build a risk-controlled, flexible, and robust hedging system.

Based on this, he suggests that individual investors adopt a balanced allocation: allocating half of their funds to mainstream stablecoins such as USDT, and the other half to core protocols within the TRON ecosystem, such as JustLend DAO and USDD. Leveraging TRON's mature and comprehensive DeFi ecosystem, users can amplify their returns through a series of investment portfolios. For example, users can convert TRX into sTRX, a liquidity staking certificate, and deposit it into JustLend DAO to obtain a basic staking yield of approximately 7.1%. Simultaneously, sTRX can also be used as collateral to mint the stablecoin USDD, which can then be deposited back into JustLend DAO to earn additional returns. Through this cyclical strategy of "staking-minting-reinvestment," users can achieve a comprehensive annualized return of approximately 13%.

This "semi-conservative, semi-aggressive" approach can significantly improve capital efficiency while keeping risks under control. Compared to the allure of high returns that come with inherent high risks, the core advantage of this strategy lies in its controllable risk management and transparent path, providing investors with a more reassuring return option.

For users or institutions with larger amounts of capital, a more systematic and sophisticated strategy is required. Mr. Miss pointed out that a real-time on-chain early warning mechanism must be established to monitor key indicators such as liquidation ratios and liquidity health, so as to promptly implement position reductions or stop-loss orders when risks first emerge.

In conclusion, rebuilding trust in DeFi is likely to be a long journey. As the speakers mentioned, trust cannot be quickly established through marketing; it can only be regained little by little through reliable mechanisms, transparent data, and products that withstand scrutiny. The TRON ecosystem's explorations in transparency, infrastructure development, stable returns, and compliance are providing valuable practical guidance for this rebuilding process.