Wrapped assets often function as liabilities in reality. That's precisely what makes newer liquidity models so compelling. The shift from traditional lock-and-mint mechanisms toward Protocol Owned Liquidity represents a meaningful change. This approach eliminates intermediaries while removing permission barriers—it's both trustless and permissionless. Most importantly, it actually carries real weight and utility across multiple blockchain networks, addressing the fragility that plagued earlier wrapped asset designs.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
  • Reward
  • 8
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
GweiObservervip
· 01-06 14:21
The argument that wrapped assets are liabilities is a bit absolute, but the protocol's inherent liquidity indeed bypasses many middlemen to profit from the spread.
View OriginalReply0
DeFiChefvip
· 01-06 14:16
Wait, are packaged assets really that bad? I feel like no one told me about this when I was blindly following the trend before.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeCrybabyvip
· 01-03 14:52
Speaking of packaging assets, this approach is indeed a bit underwhelming, finally someone dares to say it. Honestly, the idea of protocol-native liquidity is somewhat interesting, but how well it works in practice remains to be seen. Going without intermediaries and permissions sounds great, but how long can this system run? Another solution to address early vulnerabilities, remember I said the same thing last time. Can this new model truly be multi-chain universal, or is it just another wave of hype?
View OriginalReply0
FancyResearchLabvip
· 01-03 14:51
In theory, this could change the game, but I bet five dollars it's just another pile of empty promises. Once again, locking myself into the protocol's own liquidity trap. Is this time really different? Packaging assets as liabilities? Sounds good, but in reality, it's just another way to cut the grass. But trusting and decentralizing permissions does sound interesting, though I wonder how much of it can actually be implemented. Luban No.7 is under construction again. Let me try out this smart trap first. Can the early design flaws be fixed now? I feel like it's just fixing the bugs of the previous version. Multi-chain deployment sounds impressive, but in the end, it's still the same old trick. I believe in cutting out the middleman, but eliminating permission barriers... really?
View OriginalReply0
TradFiRefugeevip
· 01-03 14:51
Packaging assets is just a trap, finally someone has spoken out. Can this new liquidity set truly solve the problem, or is it just another story?
View OriginalReply0
ClassicDumpstervip
· 01-03 14:40
I'm already tired of the trap of packaging assets. The real issue is how many projects truly achieve trustlessness in liquidity...
View OriginalReply0
metaverse_hermitvip
· 01-03 14:35
Pure liquidity models sound good, but how many can actually be implemented? It still depends on how each chain's practical application turns out.
View OriginalReply0
OldLeekNewSicklevip
· 01-03 14:23
Packaging assets as liabilities? That sounds like someone is justifying a new project. Thinking about it carefully, it really is the case.
View OriginalReply0
  • Pin

Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)