If you're curious why $1.5 billion in tokenized t-bills moved from Ethereum L1 to Apotos, Avalanche, Polygon last week look at incentives.
BUIDL fees dropped from 50 bps to 20 bps for those chains (and Solana) vs Ethereum - that's $4.5m in annualized savings on $1.5 billion.
I don't have insider baseball on this but it's likely BlackRock didn't cut fees because Larry's feeling generous.
A simple theory:
Aptos, Polygon, Solana, Avalanche are paying BlackRock incentives for this privilege - or else, why only those chains at 20 bps while Optimism and Arbitrum are 50 bps?
If you're Avalanche with rich AVAX treasury would you pay a couple million to BlackRock in exchange for #2 on the RWA t-bill charts?
Wouldn't be the worst marketing dollars you've spent.
And once again we see goodhart's law in crypto - when a measure becomes a target it ceases to be a good measure.
RWAs without deep liquidity and DeFi ties to the underlying network are vanity metrics - they don't really need the underlying chain, there's minimal moat.
If the theory is right a few lessons:
- Untethered RWAs are vanity metrics
- Chains are spending for these metrics
- "Spending" is token sell pressure
There's good BD spend and there's bad BD spend. I'm not sure this is good spend.



8,540
0
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明,OKX 不是所引用文章的作者,也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考,並不代表 OKX 觀點,不作為任何形式的認可,也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下,此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章,瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險,其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況,仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。

