The post Stream’s xUSD Faces Scrutiny Over High Leverage and Transparency appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: Concerns over Stream’s xUSD leverage and asset backing transparency. xUSD’s 4.1x leverage fuels market concern. Stream’s founder addresses issues, promises transparency. Stream’s xUSD token faces scrutiny after KOL CBB0FE warns of risky leverage levels and asset backing discrepancies, prompting a response from the founder about transparency and collateralization improvements. The event highlights potential systemic risks within DeFi, emphasizing the importance of transparency and proper asset management amid volatile market conditions and heightened community skepticism. xUSD’s 4.1x Leverage Spurs Market Scrutiny CBB0FE’s warning spotlighted Stream’s xUSD, which has approximately $170 million in on-chain assets backing, while borrowing around $530 million. This discrepancy led to criticism about its illiquidity and leverage position, emphasizing risks involved with Morpho/Euler vaults. As CBB0FE, a Key Opinion Leader, stated, “Stream’s xUSD has only about $170 million in on-chain asset backing, yet it has borrowed about $530 million from various lending protocols. This means its leverage is as high as 4.1 times—built on a large number of extremely illiquid positions. This is not ‘yield farming,’ but outright degenerate gambling leverage speculation. Stay away from it. Do not touch anything related to the Morpho/Euler vaults.” Efforts to improve transparency by Stream’s founder include integrating third-party attestors and clarifying that xUSD is not a stablecoin. The reclassification as a tokenized market neutral fund aims to alleviate concerns. However, further developments are expected as the founder pledged to enhance transparency and address miscommunication. Market reactions to the controversy have been mixed, with some seeing it as a call for caution. CBB0FE’s public warning was widely shared, while Stream’s response focused on correcting miscommunication and stressing their insurance fund. Regulation and Analysis: xUSD’s Future Challenges Did you know? Excessive leverage reminiscent of previous collapses, such as the October 2025 (record USD 19 billion in liquidated positions) scenario, underscores the… The post Stream’s xUSD Faces Scrutiny Over High Leverage and Transparency appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Key Points: Concerns over Stream’s xUSD leverage and asset backing transparency. xUSD’s 4.1x leverage fuels market concern. Stream’s founder addresses issues, promises transparency. Stream’s xUSD token faces scrutiny after KOL CBB0FE warns of risky leverage levels and asset backing discrepancies, prompting a response from the founder about transparency and collateralization improvements. The event highlights potential systemic risks within DeFi, emphasizing the importance of transparency and proper asset management amid volatile market conditions and heightened community skepticism. xUSD’s 4.1x Leverage Spurs Market Scrutiny CBB0FE’s warning spotlighted Stream’s xUSD, which has approximately $170 million in on-chain assets backing, while borrowing around $530 million. This discrepancy led to criticism about its illiquidity and leverage position, emphasizing risks involved with Morpho/Euler vaults. As CBB0FE, a Key Opinion Leader, stated, “Stream’s xUSD has only about $170 million in on-chain asset backing, yet it has borrowed about $530 million from various lending protocols. This means its leverage is as high as 4.1 times—built on a large number of extremely illiquid positions. This is not ‘yield farming,’ but outright degenerate gambling leverage speculation. Stay away from it. Do not touch anything related to the Morpho/Euler vaults.” Efforts to improve transparency by Stream’s founder include integrating third-party attestors and clarifying that xUSD is not a stablecoin. The reclassification as a tokenized market neutral fund aims to alleviate concerns. However, further developments are expected as the founder pledged to enhance transparency and address miscommunication. Market reactions to the controversy have been mixed, with some seeing it as a call for caution. CBB0FE’s public warning was widely shared, while Stream’s response focused on correcting miscommunication and stressing their insurance fund. Regulation and Analysis: xUSD’s Future Challenges Did you know? Excessive leverage reminiscent of previous collapses, such as the October 2025 (record USD 19 billion in liquidated positions) scenario, underscores the…

Stream’s xUSD Faces Scrutiny Over High Leverage and Transparency

2025/10/29 14:38
Key Points:
  • Concerns over Stream’s xUSD leverage and asset backing transparency.
  • xUSD’s 4.1x leverage fuels market concern.
  • Stream’s founder addresses issues, promises transparency.

Stream’s xUSD token faces scrutiny after KOL CBB0FE warns of risky leverage levels and asset backing discrepancies, prompting a response from the founder about transparency and collateralization improvements.

The event highlights potential systemic risks within DeFi, emphasizing the importance of transparency and proper asset management amid volatile market conditions and heightened community skepticism.

xUSD’s 4.1x Leverage Spurs Market Scrutiny

CBB0FE’s warning spotlighted Stream’s xUSD, which has approximately $170 million in on-chain assets backing, while borrowing around $530 million. This discrepancy led to criticism about its illiquidity and leverage position, emphasizing risks involved with Morpho/Euler vaults. As CBB0FE, a Key Opinion Leader, stated, “Stream’s xUSD has only about $170 million in on-chain asset backing, yet it has borrowed about $530 million from various lending protocols. This means its leverage is as high as 4.1 times—built on a large number of extremely illiquid positions. This is not ‘yield farming,’ but outright degenerate gambling leverage speculation. Stay away from it. Do not touch anything related to the Morpho/Euler vaults.”

Efforts to improve transparency by Stream’s founder include integrating third-party attestors and clarifying that xUSD is not a stablecoin. The reclassification as a tokenized market neutral fund aims to alleviate concerns. However, further developments are expected as the founder pledged to enhance transparency and address miscommunication.

Market reactions to the controversy have been mixed, with some seeing it as a call for caution. CBB0FE’s public warning was widely shared, while Stream’s response focused on correcting miscommunication and stressing their insurance fund.

Regulation and Analysis: xUSD’s Future Challenges

Did you know? Excessive leverage reminiscent of previous collapses, such as the October 2025 (record USD 19 billion in liquidated positions) scenario, underscores the potential tail risks of DeFi protocols.

Ethereum (ETH), as a core platform for DeFi lending, is currently valued at $4,028.46 with a market cap of $486.23 billion. Daily volume has reached $37.61 billion, and while last 24-hour prices slipped by 1.38%, a 4.28% gain is noted over a week. Further statistics and details are provided by CoinMarketCap.

Ethereum(ETH), daily chart, screenshot on CoinMarketCap at 06:30 UTC on October 29, 2025. Source: CoinMarketCap

Insights from Coincu Research suggest possible regulatory evaluations given the complexities of xUSD’s leverage, enhancing oversight could emerge for similar DeFi products as risk management becomes a priority.

Source: https://coincu.com/news/xusd-leverage-transparency-concerns/

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@support.mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.
Share Insights

You May Also Like

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

Pavel's humanity, and Ton's challenges

I really like what Pavel mentioned about not using a mobile phone. Essentially, this is an "information fasting" approach to the challenges of information overload, contrasting with the "food fasting" that everyone loves using apps. One is metaphysical, the other is physical, but ultimately, both affect the mind and body, influencing hormones like cortisol. Now and in the future, attention is the scarcest resource. Being able to freely disconnect from electronic devices is a luxury, a freedom with its own barriers. Pavel is also an extreme craftsman. The advantage of being a craftsman is that you can lead a small team to create a killer app. However, the limitation is that Telegram, as the largest instant messaging software outside of China and the US, cannot become another Tencent platform. This same culture has also influenced its Web3 project, TON. By the way, let me talk about my close observation of TON over the past four years as the first Chinese institutional investor in the world. 1. The wrong technological path was taken. TON's stubborn insistence on using C++ seems like a kind of technological purist obsession. Historically, Russians have repeatedly taken the wrong turn on the "data technology tree": the Soviet Union failed to adapt to the transistor revolution, became obsessed with vacuum tube performance optimization, and missed the entire chip wave. They often overemphasize performance and control, but neglect the ecosystem and development experience. TON's SDK, toolchain, and documentation ecosystem lack standardization, making the development threshold too high; this is not a syntax problem, but a problem of lacking platform thinking. 2. Uneven ecological composition. Currently, it's basically only Russians and Chinese who are active, but resource allocation is clearly biased towards the Russian-speaking region. This is something everyone is already familiar with. 3. Oligopoly. Funding, traffic, and narrative resources within the ecosystem are concentrated on a few "top" companies/projects. Everyone knows they must curry favor with the "top" teams, but mid-tier projects are severely squeezed out. There is also a long-term power struggle between foundations and the oligopolistic "top" companies, resulting in constant internal friction. 4. Failure to accept oneself. Accepting and reconciling with oneself is crucial for any individual or organization. Only on this basis can you face yourself honestly and leverage your strengths while mitigating your weaknesses. However, TON seems obsessed with pitching to Musk, persuading American investors, and getting to the White House. The truth is, no matter how hard it tries, in the eyes of others, TON remains a public chain with a Russian background. In contrast, BNB didn't try to play the "American" role. Instead, it first became the most popular chain in the Eastern Time Zone, simultaneously creating a sense of FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) among Westerners, before smoothly expanding internationally—a much more effective approach. 5. The story of "adoption for 1 billion users" has been told for four years, and it's still just a story. Pavel keeps telling a grand story of "connecting Telegram's 1 billion users with the blockchain world," but this story has yet to truly materialize. The reason isn't that the vision is false, but rather structural constraints: In order to survive and ensure Pavel's personal safety (in recent years, Pavel has become increasingly obsessed with his physical safety, given several incidents, including the recent events in France), Telegram must maintain a "superficial" separation from TON to avoid crossing regulatory red lines; this separation prevents TON from ever truly integrating with Telegram's ecosystem. Even stablecoins like USDE have maintained a supply of only a few hundred million—indicating that the story is grand, but the reality is small. TON possesses the perfectionism of engineering geeks, yet lacks the warmth of ecological collaboration; it has a massive entry point, but is hampered by regulatory realities; it has its own advantages, but has not yet reconciled with itself. It has a narrative and ideals, but these need to be transformed into a sustainable balance of systems and incentives. I wish the TON ecosystem will continue to improve.
Share
PANews2025/10/30 14:00