This article deeply analyzes the root causes of the recent chain reactions of failures in DeFi and explores robust yield strategies and risk control practices using the TRON ecosystem as an example.

Recently, several noteworthy security incidents have occurred in the DeFi space, including project failures, liquidation chains, oracle manipulation, and liquidity exhaustion, leading to a shift in market sentiment towards cautious self-preservation. In this context, DeFi is no longer just synonymous with technological innovation and wealth growth; it has become a testing ground for intertwined risks and exposed vulnerabilities.

During this period of industry reflection, SunPump held a new session of the SunFlash online dialogue. This roundtable focused on the urgent topic, "With frequent DeFi failures, how should risk hedging and asset allocation be balanced?" Several industry veteran KOLs were invited to attempt to cut through the market noise and return to essential discussions: Are these risk events random explosions, or are they systemic pains that inevitably accompany DeFi at its current stage of development? Under multiple risks, how should users and institutions build their own defense systems? More importantly, after repeated collapses of trust, does DeFi still have the ability to rebuild credibility, and what path will it take towards a more robust and sustainable future?

Analysis of DeFi Failures: Governance Deficiencies and Systemic Risks Under the Illusion of High Returns

Behind the recent chain reactions of failures in the DeFi space, several experienced practitioners and researchers gathered in Space to discuss their root causes. Although the perspectives varied, the guests generally agreed that this series of events is not isolated technical failures but rather a concentrated outbreak of structural risks accumulated during the rapid development of the entire industry. Among them, the "pseudo-decentralized" governance loopholes and unsustainable high-yield models were repeatedly mentioned as the two core risk points.

Mr. Miss sharply pointed out that many failing projects disguise themselves with a "decentralized" facade, but their core powers, such as fund allocation and contract control, are often highly concentrated in the hands of a few team members. He illustrated that some projects do not even adopt basic multi-signature mechanisms; once internal issues arise within the team, power can easily be abused, leading to failures. This "pseudo-decentralization" makes the project essentially centralized while using the "transparency" of blockchain to lower investors' guard.

Kid RIVER and Zane strongly agreed and further added that this governance loophole may be concealed during stable market periods, but once faced with extreme conditions or malicious attacks, it will be completely exposed. 0xPink vividly summarized that the apparent open-source contracts and community governance still have their core liquidation and oracle logic controlled by a few individuals, and the entire system could fail instantly due to team errors or malicious operations.

On the other hand, the unsustainable high-yield model is another significant source of risk. Mr. Miss raised the question: "Where does the money for annual returns of 100% or 200% come from?" He pointed out that such high returns often rely on a continuous influx of new funds; once market sentiment cools and liquidity decreases, its fragile yield model will amplify risks infinitely.

Finally, several guests emphasized that the risks in DeFi are not isolated single-point issues but have strong contagion effects. 0xPink noted that the failure of one protocol could trigger liquidations, which in turn could affect its associated collateral assets and other protocols, forming a chain reaction similar to traditional financial runs. Within this seemingly high-tech financial system, due to centralized governance, unsustainable yield models, and the widespread presence of leverage, a high-yield yet extremely fragile system has been collectively constructed.

Finding Certainty Amid Uncertainty: Robust Yield Strategies in the TRON Ecosystem

Faced with on-chain risks that cannot be completely eliminated, how should individual users and institutional investors build their own "defensive fortifications" to hedge risks and balance yields? In the second segment of this Space, the guests provided comprehensive strategies from basic to advanced, with the core consensus summarized as: through robust investment strategies and dynamic monitoring, bring uncontrollable systemic risks into a controllable range.

For ordinary users, the guests unanimously emphasized the most basic and effective principle: "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." Kid RIVER and Teacher 77 both suggested that the majority of assets should be allocated to mainstream stablecoins (such as USDT, USDC) and core assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum, using only a small portion of the capital (for example, 10%-20% of total funds) to try high-yield new projects, treating this as a "trial and error" cost, so that even if losses occur, it won't be too damaging.

When discussing specific investment strategies, 0xPink specifically used the TRON ecosystem as an example, proposing a feasible plan that balances robustness and yield. He first affirmed the transparency advantage of over-collateralized stablecoins like USDD within the ecosystem, which can be "verified on-chain." Additionally, he viewed the TRON platform token TRX itself as a core asset worth holding, noting that its increase this year has brought decent stable returns. By combining stablecoins, platform tokens, and robust yield protocols within the TRON ecosystem, users can build a risk-controlled, flexible, and robust hedging system.

On this basis, he suggested that individual investors could adopt a balanced allocation: allocate half of their funds to mainstream stablecoins like USDT, and the other half to core protocols within the TRON ecosystem, such as JustLend DAO and USDD. Relying on the mature and well-developed DeFi ecosystem of TRON, users can amplify returns through a series of investment combinations. For example, users can convert TRX into liquid staking certificates sTRX and deposit them into JustLend DAO to earn about 7.1% basic staking returns. At the same time, sTRX can also be used as collateral to mint stablecoin USDD, which can be deposited back into JustLend DAO for additional returns. Through this "staking-minting-reinvestment" cycle strategy, users can achieve an approximate 13% comprehensive annualized return.

This "half-robust, half-aggressive" combination can significantly enhance capital efficiency while keeping risks controllable. Compared to those high-yield temptations that imply high risks, the core advantage of this strategy lies in its controllable risk management and transparent path, providing investors with a more reassuring yield choice.

For users or institutions with larger capital amounts, the strategy needs to be more systematic and precise. Mr. Miss pointed out that a real-time on-chain warning mechanism must be established to monitor key indicators such as liquidation ratios and liquidity health, so that timely actions can be taken to reduce positions or stop losses as soon as risks emerge.

In summary, the rebuilding of trust in DeFi may be a long journey. As the guests mentioned, trust cannot be quickly established through marketing; it can only be regained bit by bit through reliable mechanisms, transparent data, and tested products. The exploration of the TRON ecosystem in terms of transparency, infrastructure development, robust yields, and compliance is providing valuable practical directions for this rebuilding path.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。