Why did LBank's funding curve rise in the opposite direction when the entire industry was in recession?

During the recent market correction, a clear but rarely mentioned dividing line emerged in the crypto industry: while most exchanges saw their funding curves weaken in tandem, a few exhibited drastically different trajectories. Large amounts of capital withdrew from exchanges due to risk aversion, leading to a general decline in net inflows of stablecoins and a continued contraction in derivatives holdings. The industry has entered a typical "ebb tide" phase, with liquidity being rapidly repriced both externally and internally.

However, against the backdrop of a weakening overall environment, LBank's funding performance presents a striking counter-example. CoinGlass data shows that while online activity (OI) and fund flows on mainstream platforms have generally declined, LBank's holdings have remained stable, and net inflows have shown an upward trend. This contrarian trend breaks the industry consensus and becomes a noteworthy structural phenomenon during the correction period.

Market sentiment may change, but the choices made by funds are often more realistic, and such counter-trend changes often indicate that some deeper structural differences are at play.

Industry panorama during a correction cycle: emerging data gaps

Since the crash on October 11, the crypto market has entered a period of high volatility, with mainstream asset prices falling rapidly and investor risk appetite plummeting. This has been followed by a simultaneous tightening of liquidity both inside and outside exchanges, with large amounts of funds withdrawing from exchanges and platform wallet balances dropping to multi-year lows. On October 13, 2025 alone, the amount of Bitcoin held by centralized exchanges worldwide fell to approximately 2.15 million, a new low since 2023.

This data discrepancy indicates that a significant amount of capital is withdrawing from exchanges (moving towards cold wallets, staking, or DeFi), exhibiting a clear "ebb tide effect." Typically, a decrease in exchange balances suggests investors are choosing to remain on the sidelines or hold long-term during periods of risk, while an increase in balances indicates both buying and selling intentions. Recently, most major trading platforms have faced net outflows or declining net inflows, making it difficult to maintain growth momentum.

However, against the backdrop of this industry-wide downturn, LBank exhibited a different trend. The holdings of multiple tokens continued to increase during this period. For example, BSV's contract holdings reached 1.87 million, accounting for 78% of the global market; GMT's holdings reached 132 million, accounting for 21%; BEL's holdings ranked second globally, accounting for 33%; and ROSE's holdings ranked fifth globally, accounting for 8%.

When the entire industry is declining, an independently rising funding curve signifies a "structural countercurrent." Capital is more sensitive and honest than sentiment, and this countercurrent often occurs when a platform truly possesses a differentiated competitive advantage. This is precisely why LBank's performance warrants in-depth analysis.

Structural attractiveness of high-yield products

During market downturns, investors generally face the same dilemma: where to put their stablecoins. Continuing to chase high-risk assets aligns with current sentiment, while simply holding coins means sitting idle with opportunity costs. Therefore, exchange-traded yield products are increasingly becoming a key factor in whether funds choose to "stay" or "withdraw." However, many yield-generating tools in the industry still have significant barriers to entry, such as long-term lock-up periods, complex tiered systems, tiered yields, and even the requirement to jump into DeFi to bear the risks of smart contracts. These factors make it difficult for users to truly participate in a weak market.

In contrast, LBank's stablecoin flexible investment product stands out with its "no lock-up period + stable APY" features. Users only need to deposit USDT or USDC to receive daily returns and can easily switch back to their trading account when the market reverses. This highly flexible return structure perfectly matches the core psychology of funds during market downturns: "wanting returns while also being able to withdraw funds at any time."

More importantly, LBank's current account returns do not have the common hidden thresholds of "tiered limits." Users see a uniform interest rate, and the actual returns they receive are exactly the same, without being forcibly tiered based on the size of their funds. This transparent mechanism is especially crucial for medium to large-capital users, as it means that the predictable returns and the actual returns are completely consistent.

This advantage was amplified to its extreme during the 500% annualized stablecoin promotion launched on November 6th. The promotion attracted over 93,118 users, with a cumulative holding of $67.43 million. This high-incentive product, launched during a critical window of weak market conditions, not only significantly improved short-term return expectations but also further strengthened the market consensus that "keeping funds in LBank is more efficient," ultimately creating an observable fund aggregation effect.

But what truly allows LBank to build a deep-rooted ability to generate returns in a weak market is that it doesn't limit its yield services to the demand deposit level. Demand deposits are responsible for "retaining funds," while dual-currency investment is responsible for "improving efficiency." In periods when users are unwilling to gamble on market direction but also unwilling to let their funds remain completely dormant, dual-currency investment becomes the most suitable tool for weak market behavior. It doesn't require trend prediction; it only requires judging short-term ranges to obtain higher returns than demand deposits. Short cycles and fast settlements mean funds can immediately return to the trading area upon maturity, allowing users to earn stable returns while waiting for market trends and to enter the market immediately once a direction is identified.

More importantly, we compared the target prices corresponding to the current market at each level, and tested the most recent one or two mainstream levels. LBank's dual-currency yield is at the best level among products in the same range.

The flexible deposit system ensures funds don't flow out, while the dual-currency structure allows funds to remain highly efficient even in a weak market. Together, these two elements constitute LBank's "fund buffer structure." It is this structure that has enabled LBank to achieve sustained growth in stablecoin assets during a period of widespread capital outflow. For many users, a new default strategy has emerged: first, hold funds in LBank, generating continuous returns through flexible deposits or the dual-currency system, and then enter the market opportunely based on market conditions. This "always-available and always efficient" fund management approach directly constitutes LBank's most significant competitive advantage during this market downturn.

Potential variables in the new cycle: The industry liquidity landscape is being reshaped.

If the yield structure explains why funds are willing to stay in LBank, then the deeper reason concerns the significant changes taking place in the industry structure. For the past decade, the competitive model of CEXs has been centered on scale—whoever has more users, stronger trading depth, and a more reputable brand. However, this recent correction has exposed a more fundamental trend: the industry is shifting from competition based on scale to competition based on efficiency.

When liquidity tightens and opportunities diminish, users shift their focus from marketing and "gameplay" to the core questions: Which platforms can identify growth assets first? Which platforms can launch trending projects fastest? Which platforms can still create trading opportunities in a weak market?

These issues can be summarized into one core capability: the ability to list tokens.

Listing capability is not simply about the quantity or speed of listings, but rather encompasses a complete chain of capabilities including asset discovery, project screening, early pricing, liquidity organization, and deep maintenance. To verify this, we conducted a comparative analysis of the listing performance of the four major exchanges during the crucial November window. The results show that during this period, LBank and Gate listed significantly faster than Binance and Bybit. Whether considering the number of new listings or the speed of capturing trending topics, LBank's advantage is quite evident.

The market performance of initial public offerings (IPOs) further illustrates this difference. During the same trading window, LBank's IPOs saw an average increase of 204%, with a market share of approximately 17%, significantly higher than other platforms. A further comparison of the performance of the last ten listed projects on the four major exchanges reveals an even more striking disparity: LBank's new tokens saw an average increase of 131%, and it had the largest number of tokens in the upward trend; while Binance saw an increase of 64%, Gate 31%, and OKX recorded an overall decline of -8.5%.

This isn't just about differences in price increases; it demonstrates that, amidst escalating macroeconomic pressures and regulatory uncertainty, more flexible, efficient, and asset-capable mid-sized platforms are gaining a more scarce market share. More importantly, this "listing advantage" has translated into tangible growth in trading volume. According to Coingecko data , by the end of 2025, LBank will support 1003 assets and 1181 trading pairs, significantly outnumbering other platforms of its size and becoming one of the primary liquidity gateways for new assets.

The more willing a platform is to launch new products, the more precise its selection process, and the more effective its pricing, the more likely users are to see it as "the gateway to the next opportunity." In a weak market cycle, platforms that can consistently create trading opportunities will experience structural growth faster than larger giants.

Efficiency is replacing scale as the core of the next stage of industry competition.

The pullback cycle is essentially an industry reshuffling cycle. When existing funds are limited and opportunities are scarce, liquidity will actively flow to the most efficient platforms. For LBank, the fact that its funding curve continues to rise during the pullback cycle is not a coincidence, but the result of the long-term compounding of a series of structural advantages, including a flexible yield system, a transparent low-cost structure, highly responsive listing capabilities, and more efficient early pricing and liquidity organization capabilities.

The industry landscape won't change overnight, but the trend is very clear: the next round of industry competition will no longer be about "who is the biggest," but rather "who is more efficient." Exchanges that can continuously provide new assets, create trading opportunities, and maintain efficient liquidity will occupy a more important position in the next cycle.

LBank is accelerating its progress on this new competitive front.