Actually, this is incorrect since if you look on-chain, those tokens move from the institutional share class of BUIDL, which has lower fees than the 50 bps of the regular one, so certainly it is not to save on fees at all.
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.
2.36萬
74
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。