Unstable Tit 價格UST

Terra ($LUNA ) Ecosystem — Data-Based, Short & War-Oriented The Terra collapse wasn’t emotional — it was mathematical. Key Numbers (Reality Check) • LUNA price: from ~$119 (Apr 2022) → ~$0.0001 at bottom → ~99.99% drawdown • Supply: from ~350M LUNA → 6.5+ trillion LUNA after death spiral • TVL: from $30–40B peak → <$200M post-collapse → >99% capital destruction • UST: depegged from $1 → ~$0.02 at lows • Current activity: volume spikes mostly come from retail speculation, not ecosystem growth What This Means • Tokenomics were structurally broken, not unlucky • LUNA absorbed losses but had no real demand floor • Any pump since is liquidity-driven, not usage-driven Community vs Reality • Social engagement stays high • On-chain usage and dev activity stay flat or declining ____________ Bull case: extreme volatility = tradable hype asset Bear case: irreversible trust loss + dead capital base ____________ If 99% of capital is gone and supply exploded 18,000x, 👉 Are you investing — or just gambling on memory? Pick a side. $BTC $ETH

Earlier this year, Gold Car Rent, a corporate vehicle rental company in Dubai, sought growth capital to expand its fleet and meet rising demand from long-term corporate clients. Instead of turning to traditional bank financing, the company raised capital through 8lends, a Web3-based crowdlending platform that connects global investors with real-world business loans. The financing was backed by collateral, specifically a fleet of Mercedes-Benz Vito vans owned by Gold Car Rent, which were appraised and used to secure the loan. The loan capital itself was released in stages, with each tranche unlocked only after the required documents and invoices were verified. Repayments are made from operating income generated by long-term B2B rental contracts. Under this structure, investors can see that returns are tied to business performance rather than a complex yield structure. For the company, the arrangement provided access to global capital without lowering underwriting standards. Gold Car Rents story shows whats quietly shifting in the DeFi yield segment through peer-to-peer (P2P) lending mechanisms. To learn more about this, BeInCrypto recently spoke with Aleksander Lang, CFO Co-Founder of Maclear the company behind 8lends. We explored why investors are increasingly turning toward stable-income crowdlending, how platforms like 8lends are adapting institutional credit practices to Web3 infrastructure, and whether this model can become a sustainable source of passive income for crypto investors. Two Models, Two Risk Profiles Peer-to-peer lending or crowdlending existed long before crypto and DeFi. Marketplace lending platforms spent years connecting investors with small businesses that traditional banks wouldnt touch. The pitch was simple: earn fixed returns by funding real economic activity. But the model also comes with trade-offs. Because many P2P platforms allow borrowers who fall outside conventional bank criteria, default risk can be higher than in traditional lending. Credit losses depend largely on the platforms underwriting standards, loan structure, and recovery processes, as well as the underlying business performance of borrowers. At the same time, many traditional P2P platforms are constrained by jurisdictional boundaries, limiting both investor access and cross-border diversification and tying risk management and enforcement to local legal frameworks. Decentralized finance (DeFi) approached the same problem from a different angle. DeFi lending protocols allow users to lend and borrow crypto assets through smart contracts, often using overcollateralization and automated liquidations to manage default risk. By removing intermediaries and geographic restrictions, DeFi dramatically expanded access to lending markets and introduced different forms of capital efficiency. In its early growth phase, parts of the DeFi yield ecosystem blurred the line between lending income and incentive-driven returns. Some protocols supplemented organic lending yields with token emissions or relied on optimistic assumptions about liquidity and collateral stability. Anchor Protocol on Terra became the most visible example. During its prime era, it offered roughly 20% APY on UST deposits by combining lending activity with subsidized rewards. When the underlying stablecoin failed in 2022, the entire structure collapsed. Why Investors Are Rethinking Yield After DeFis Boom and Bust However, Terras failure forced the industry to reassess how sustainable yields were being generated. Lang observed the same shift taking shape among investors. While confidence in high-yield narratives eroded, he noted that users did not reject crypto itself. People still liked crypto and all its advantages, like convenience, speed, and global access, but after seeing so many high-yield projects fall apart, their mindset started to change. When you see a platform promise 20% risk-free returns and then collapse overnight, or a big service suddenly freezes withdrawals, it leaves a significant impression. So instead of chasing the next APY, users began looking for products backed by real business activity. They wanted something they could clearly understand: where the money comes from, who the borrower is, and how the returns are generated. Real cash flow, not slogans or inflated marketing campaigns, Lang opined. Lang argued Web3 crowdlending sits between those two worlds. Rather than reinventing yield, it applies established lending mechanics while using blockchain infrastructure to expand access, standardize transparency, and make performance verifiable across borders. It allows people to stay in the crypto space while getting something predictable and easy to understand, based on actual performance rather than promises, he told BeInCrypto. Bringing Credit Discipline On-Chain Lang then explained how 8lends combines elements of DeFi and traditional crowdlending in its operational model. While the platform was developed by a team with extensive experience in Swiss P2P lending through Maclear, it was not designed as a direct extension of a Web2 platform. Instead, the focus was on rethinking how the credit process should be structured and presented in a decentralized environment, taking into account the different expectations of investors across both ecosystems. He said: In traditional lending, people rely on regulation and reputation, but on-chain users expect clarity first. They want to understand how decisions are made. So we focused on making the core elements of the process more visible: what information we analyze, how borrowers are assessed, and how risks are monitored. Lang also recognized that Web3 users are accustomed to updates as they happen. Rather than waiting for a final outcome, they want to follow progress along the way. As a result, 8lends reorganized how information is presented so investors can track developments in a clear and timely manner, while preserving the rigor of the underwriting process. Consistency was the final requirement. Lang stated that Maclear built its reputation on strict, repeatable procedures, including document checks, financial analysis, and ongoing monitoring. He added: Translating that level of operational structure into a blockchain environment required standardizing how information is displayed and verified so users can review the logic themselves. For the company, this is where blockchain provides tangible benefits. Funding flows, repayments, and performance data can be shown as they occur. Smart contracts apply the same rules consistently, reducing operational risk. At the same time, the system remains accessible to users globally, while preserving the same credit discipline behind the underwriting process. Proof of Loan: How 8LNDS Supports Participation Without Replacing Yield In addition to utilizing blockchain infrastructure to improve transparency and access, 8lends also introduced 8LNDS, a native token, to support participation within the platforms Web3 crowdlending ecosystem. Unlike many DeFi-native tokens, 8LNDS is designed to reinforce engagement and long-term participation rather than alter the economics of the lending product itself. Lending yields on 8lends remain fixed, asset-backed, and tied to borrower performance. The token operates alongside that structure, supporting rewards, loyalty mechanics, and additional benefits for active lenders across both traditional and Web3-native audiences. It didnt launch through a public sale or a push for early liquidity. Instead, it began as an earn-only token with distribution tied directly to activity on the platform, Timoshkin explained. 8LNDS is distributed through platform participation via 8lends Proof of Loan mechanism, appearing when users fund real-world business loans. In this structure, token distribution reflects actual lending activity, while investor returns continue to come solely from loan repayments generated by operating companies. What Web3 Crowdlending Needs to Prove As the conversation drew to a close, Lang outlined the qualities he believes Web3 crowdlending must demonstrate to reach mainstream adoption. Transparency around borrowers and loan terms, clear and understandable risk assessment, and returns generated from real repayment activity rather than incentives were central to that view. He also stressed the importance of being honest about liquidity, noting that fixed-term loans should behave like fixed-term investments, not products that promise instant exits. If this space wants to grow, it needs to rely on real fundamentals, not on marketing about high yields. Thats the only way a stable-income model can last in a market that already knows what happens when transparency is optional. For Lang, the clearest signal of success would come from changes in investor behavior rather than headline growth metrics. When crypto investors begin treating business-backed lending as a standard portfolio component, evaluated on credit fundamentals instead of yield promises, it would indicate that Web3 crowdlending has entered a more mature phase. And it doesnt take much to see that shift. If even 5% to 10% of the average Web3 portfolio ends up in real-world lending, thats already a signal that crowdlending has moved from a niche idea into a normal passive-income option, he noted. Read the article at BeInCrypto

Jump Trading faces a $4 billion lawsuit filed by Terraform Labs’ bankruptcy administrator related to the 2022 Terra ecosystem collapse, according to the Wall Street Journal. This legal action potentially affects LUNA and UST assets, stirring concerns about past market manipulations and future regulatory scrutiny. A lawsuit against Jump Trading has emerged, seeking $4 billion in damages due to its alleged involvement in the Terra Labs collapse. The collapse centers around accusations related to the manipulation of cryptocurrencies like LUNA and UST. The lawsuit was filed by Terraform Labs’ bankruptcy administrator, targeting Jump Trading for purportedly manipulating market prices during the collapse. The case involves Jump Trading’s use of high-frequency strategies to benefit from distorted currency valuations. The lawsuit could have significant implications for the cryptocurrency landscape. Financial repercussions on companies connected with Terra, including valuation disruptions, could arise, impacting investor trust and market stability. Potential political fallout may result if regulatory bodies opt to increase scrutiny of crypto trading activities. “The current situation may draw from past allegations against Jump Trading regarding UST manipulation,” which could lead to extended financial ramifications influencing high-frequency trading entities and proprietary firms engaged in similar activities. The lawsuit reflects ongoing challenges in crypto regulation, focusing on transparency and market fairness. Historical trends indicate increased legal actions in the crypto space, emphasizing the need for enhanced regulatory frameworks to safeguard market integrity. Insights into financial, regulatory, or technological outcomes are essential, given the lawsuit’s scope. Understanding its influence on investment patterns and regulatory approaches toward crypto assets is key. Historical precedents offer a backdrop for potential industry changes.

What has happened this week in the world of blockchain and cryptocurrencies? The most relevant local and international events, as well as interesting background reports, are summarized concisely in this weekly review. Selected articles of the week: The Bitcoin mining industry is undergoing a radical strategic shift toward AI data centers, driven by a 35 percent collapse in hash price from 55 to 35 USD per petahash since September. Canadian miner Bitfarms announced a complete exit from Bitcoin mining by 2027 and secured GPU supply contracts worth 128 million USD. AI infrastructure generates up to 25 times higher revenue per kilowatt-hour than Bitcoin mining: Blockchain company HIVE estimates that 10 megawatts of Nvidia H100 GPUs produce the same returns as 100 megawatts of mining capacity. Core Scientific signed contracts with cloud provider CoreWeave totaling over 6.7 billion USD, while Riot Platforms reserved two-thirds of its 112 megawatt new capacity in Texas for AI applications. The transformation occurs out of strategic necessity, as profitable mining at current network difficulty levels requires Bitcoin prices above 90,000 USD. Bitcoin miners shift to AI infrastructure: the industry’s major transformation The Bitcoin mining industry is facing a fundamental transformation, as many of the leading companies are pivoting toward AI infrastructure. Read More Coinbase launches stock trading and prediction markets US crypto exchange Coinbase is expanding its offering to include commission-free stock trading and regulated prediction markets in partnership with Kalshi. CEO Brian Armstrong presented the vision of an “Everything Exchange” where users can trade all asset classes. The prediction markets function as CFTC-regulated derivatives with binary options between 0.01 and 0.99 USD, where correct predictions pay out one dollar and price formation reflects collective probability assessments. Analysts forecast growth of the total market to one trillion USD annual volume by decade’s end. Competitor Robinhood already generates over 100 million USD in annualized revenue from prediction markets with more than one million active users. The expansion positions Coinbase in direct competition with established fintech providers and signals the increasing convergence between crypto exchanges and traditional financial service providers. Crypto exchange Coinbase expands into stock trading and prediction markets The US crypto exchange Coinbase is integrating prediction markets through a partnership with Kalshi and enabling commission-free stock trading. Read More Trading firm Jump Trading faces 4 billion USD damages claim The bankruptcy administrator of Terraform Labs is demanding 4 billion USD in damages from Jump Trading for alleged market manipulation and insider trading related to the Terra collapse. The lawsuit accuses the trading firm of concealing a secret agreement with Do Kwon involving heavily discounted LUNA tokens: Jump received approximately 61.4 million tokens at a price of 0.40 USD in July 2021 when the market price was around 90 USD—a 99 percent discount. The company realized profits of 1.28 billion USD from these positions. During a UST crisis in May 2021, Jump intervened with token purchases worth 20 million USD, but falsely presented this as algorithmic stabilization. The final Terra collapse in May 2022 destroyed over 40 billion USD in value, with UST crashing from one dollar to 0.02 USD. Jump Trading described the lawsuit as a “desperate attempt” to shift responsibility away from Terraform Labs. Jump Trading Faces USD 4 Billion Lawsuit Over Terra Collapse The bankruptcy trustee of Terraform Labs has filed a USD 4 billion lawsuit against the trading firm Jump Trading. Read More SEC ends Aave investigation after four years without sanctions The US Securities and Exchange Commission closed its four-year investigation into DeFi protocol Aave without recommending enforcement actions. The agency had been investigating since 2021 whether the AAVE governance token should be classified as an unregistered security. Aave manages over 40 billion USD in total value locked and controls approximately 60 percent of the DeFi lending market share across 14 blockchains. Founder Stani Kulechov described the process as resource-intensive but expressed relief at its conclusion. The decision creates an important precedent for protocols with comparable governance structures, though the SEC emphasized that non-enforcement does not constitute exoneration. The closure follows a series of recent case dismissals against Uniswap Labs and Consensys, reflecting the strategic shift under SEC Chair Paul Atkins toward structured regulation rather than aggressive enforcement. SEC closes four-year investigation into Aave without enforcement action The US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has dropped its investigation into leading DeFi protocol Aave after four years. Read More PayPal applies for banking license for direct lending business In addition: Fintech giant PayPal is pursuing a Utah charter as an Industrial Loan Company (ILC) and filed applications with the FDIC and Utah financial authorities. The license would enable the company to internalize lending operations currently handled through partner banks, as well as offer FDIC-insured interest-bearing savings accounts. Since 2013, PayPal has issued over 30 billion USD in 1.4 million loans to 420,000 business accounts with exceptional Net Promoter Scores between 76 and 85 points. The ILC structure allows non-banks to provide banking services without full subjection to the Bank Holding Company Act. During the Trump administration, over 18 fintech companies applied for banking licenses, including crypto firms like Circle, Ripple, BitGo, and Paxos, which received conditional preliminary approvals for national trust banks from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. PayPal applies for banking license: Fintech giant aims to expand lending business PayPal has applied to the FDIC and the Utah Department of Financial Institutions to establish a Utah-chartered industrial bank. Read More Would you like to receive our weekly review conveniently in your inbox on Saturdays? Subscribe CVJ.CH Newsletter Email address:

A fresh $4 billion lawsuit tied to Terraform Labs’ collapse is becoming a test of what a stablecoin’s $1 promise means amid the adoption of dollar tokens as payment rails. The case is about more than who pays for a 2022-era failure. It also decides whether a “stable” price can be maintained by arrangements that everyday users never see. That debate is unfolding as regulators rewrite rules to treat stablecoins as money-like instruments for settlement, remittances, and merchant payouts. A court-appointed plan administrator overseeing Terraform’s wind-down sued Jump, seeking $4 billion. The administrator alleges the firm supported TerraUSD’s peg through trading and undisclosed arrangements, then benefited through discounted Luna-related terms, according to The Wall Street Journal. Jump has denied the claims. Stablecoins move from reserve theory to real-world stress tests The question for users is what happens when “stability” depends on market structure, incentives, and counterparties, not only on an issuer’s reserves and redemption mechanics. That question is landing as stablecoins move closer to consumer-visible rails. Visa expanded USDC settlement for U.S. banks, enabling around-the-clock settlement for participating institutions. SoFi announced a dollar-pegged token and positioned it for settlement and remittances. In parallel, the market is already large enough that disruptions translate into real frictions. DefiLlama shows the global stablecoin supply at around $309 billion, with USDT accounting for roughly 60%. TRM Labs has reported that stablecoins have surpassed $4 trillion in volume, evidence that they already function as settlement plumbing even when users do not label them as such. Terraform’s collapse remains a reference point because it spotlights a failure mode that “are reserves real” does not fully capture. A stablecoin can stay near $1 because redemptions anchor it, because reserve quality supports those redemptions, or because arbitrage narrows gaps. It can also hold because a powerful liquidity provider has incentives to trade in a way that defends the peg. The administrator’s allegations put that last channel at the center. The claim is that stabilization depended on a trading counterparty acting quietly and potentially in conflict with what users believe they are buying. If courts validate claims that a peg was supported through undisclosed incentives and trading programs, the compliance perimeter could expand beyond issuer balance sheets. It could also include stabilization agreements and market conduct. Regulators tighten the perimeter around stablecoins as legal scrutiny intensifies Regulation is already moving in that direction, with stablecoins being pulled into mainstream financial rulebooks rather than treated as exchange collateral. President Donald Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law on July 18, 2025, creating a federal framework to facilitate the mainstream adoption of “payment stablecoins.” The OCC also conditionally approved national trust bank charters for several crypto firms, a step toward regulated issuance, custody, and distribution channels. In the UK, the Bank of England consultation on regulating systemic stablecoins has included public discussion of consumer-facing constraints. Reuters also reported Deputy Governor Sarah Breeden warned that diluting stablecoin rules could damage the financial system. Globally, the permissioning environment is diverging. China’s central bank has reiterated a crackdown stance and flagged stablecoin concerns, a posture that can shape cross-border availability and off-ramp access. That policy mix can manifest as product limits and higher friction, even if the stated goal is safer, money-like tokens. Tighter rules can mean fewer stablecoins supported in major apps, more KYC checks at cash-in and cash-out, and transfer caps in some jurisdictions. It can also mean wider spreads and higher fees as compliance and liquidity costs are factored into pricing. The Terraform allegations add a specific lever regulators can pull: disclosure and constraints around stabilization arrangements. That includes market-maker contracts, liquidity backstops, incentive programs, and any “emergency support” triggers, so a $1 claim does not rely on hidden counterparties. Why market structure and reserve trust matter more than the headline lawsuit There is also a market-quality channel that tends to hit retail first. In June, Fortune reported the CFTC has been probing Jump Crypto and described the firm as a major liquidity provider. If a top market maker retrenches under litigation and regulatory pressure, order books can thin, slippage can rise, and volatility can spike around stress events. The everyday effect is mechanical: worse execution and faster liquidation cascades during drawdowns, even for traders who never hold stablecoins directly. Reserve governance remains part of the trust equation as well. SP recently downgraded its assessment of Tether, citing concerns about reserve composition. That matters because consumer adoption does not hinge only on whether a token prints $1 on a chart. It also hinges on whether redemption confidence holds through shocks, and whether market structure props up that confidence in ways users understand. Forecasts help explain why this case is being watched as a forward-looking test rather than a post-mortem. Standard Chartered has projected that stablecoins could grow to about $2 trillion by 2028 under the new U.S. framework. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent projects tenfold growth toward roughly $3 trillion by the end of the decade. At that scale, peg integrity becomes a consumer protection and financial stability issue. The line between issuer risk and market-structure risk becomes harder to ignore. Why the Jump–Terraform lawsuit could reshape stablecoin trust and oversight Scale and reference Metric User-facing consequence DefiLlama snapshot ~$309.7B stablecoin supply, USDT ~60% share Stablecoins already sit inside transfers, exchange settlement, and app balances Standard Chartered via Reuters ~$2T by 2028 More use in settlement raises expectations for disclosure and controls Bessent via Barron’s ~$3T by end of decade Stabilization methods draw scrutiny similar to other payment systems Even without a definitive court ruling, the lawsuit could shape norms by forcing them into the open. A settlement could limit precedent but still pressure exchanges, issuers, and market makers to strengthen disclosures and internal controls around peg support. Discovery that substantiates the administrator’s account could invite follow-on suits and rulemaking that treats stabilization arrangements as material facts for payment-grade stablecoins. A dismissal would narrow the immediate path for restitution against intermediaries. It would not remove the policy focus now forming around how pegs are maintained as stablecoins move deeper into bank settlement and consumer-adjacent payments. The post Terraform’s $4 billion Jump lawsuit exposes the hidden “shadow trading” that may be artificially holding up stablecoin prices appeared first on CryptoSlate.