Author: Beta Brother of US Stocks

The Chain of Equity Asset Release of "On-Chain Debt"

You start with $1 million USDC, a compliant stablecoin used to purchase tokenized TSLA on a regulated platform, which represents real Tesla stock 1:1 as a digital asset (like TSLA-T).

This token is held by a securities custodian that safeguards the corresponding stock and is issued on a compliant chain through platforms like Coinbase. At this point, your $1 million has become "an on-chain mirror of real equity."

Next, you bridge TSLA-T to a high-freedom, non-regulated DeFi chain (like Arbitrum or Blast), where the bridging contract locks the original token and releases a mapped asset on the target chain, such as wTSLA. At this moment, you hold an on-chain financial asset "backed by real equity," which is accepted as high-grade collateral by DeFi protocols.

Subsequently, you collateralize wTSLA to a lending protocol (like Morpho, Silo, Gearbox, etc.) to borrow $900,000 in USDT or DAI, which are stablecoins that can be freely moved and exchanged within the DeFi system.

You convert this borrowed amount into USDC or USDP through Curve or OTC channels, and then withdraw it to your bank account via centralized cash-out paths (like Coinbase, Kraken, Silvergate), turning it into real-world USD fiat. Thus, you have extracted $900,000 in off-chain cash using the "on-chain shell" of tokenized TSLA, which is economically usable, consumable, and investable. You can use it to repurchase Tesla stock through a brokerage, entering the off-chain securities system.

After completing the off-chain purchase, you repeat the same process: tokenize the real stock, generate TSLA-T, bridge it again to wTSLA, and cycle through collateralization, borrowing, exchanging, and cashing out.

This series of operations essentially packages the originally static equity asset into an on-chain system that can release "stablecoin debt," and the released debt transforms into usable cash in the real world through bridging and liquidation mechanisms.

Each cycle does not require new capital; the actual asset (Tesla stock) is merely "shifted" in your hands, while new cash availability is continuously released on-chain. This is what you refer to in your diagram: "As long as Tesla does not fluctuate significantly, my stock is staked on-chain, and there is an additional $900,000 USD fiat outside"—to be precise, it is through high-frequency, low-friction tokenization → borrowing → cashing out cycles that static assets are converted into off-chain cash liquidity, releasing nearly equivalent loan funds each round, ultimately achieving asset outflow and credit layer amplification.

Advanced Version of the FTT Explosion Script

In this structure, tokenized stocks do not need to be high-traffic, high-profile stocks like TSLA.

Instead, choosing a low-liquidity, easily manipulated small-cap stock (like OTC market stocks, Penny Stocks, or non-mainstream assets held under certain compliant brokerages) is a rational choice.

You can control 10%–30% of its circulating supply with a few million dollars, quietly driving up the price off-chain, then tokenize this stock to mint it as an on-chain mapped asset, bridge it to the DeFi chain, and use the wSTOCK, which you have artificially inflated, as collateral to borrow a large amount of stablecoins.

Since most on-chain protocols only recognize oracle prices and superficial volatility, as long as you raise the off-chain market cap and trading depth—even if just for a few trading days—the on-chain will perceive this as a "high-quality, high-value" compliant asset, thus releasing a very high lending limit. TVL continues to grow in this process because the stablecoins released from each loan are injected into new liquidity pools (LP, market making, re-staking), and you can even artificially create a liquidity growth curve, leading protocols, communities, and even on-chain data analysis platforms to believe this is "the blueprint for the financialization of next-generation on-chain assets."

You can easily create a "growth narrative": claiming that this type of asset can connect TradFi and DeFi, and that it is part of the RWA wave. Once the market and protocols believe this story, your cash-out channel is opened. After completing several rounds of cashing out and successfully selling a large amount of off-chain-held stock at a high price, you only need to stop supporting the price at a certain point—like withdrawing from LP or allowing liquidation—and the on-chain price of this stock will crash, with the protocol's liquidation system taking over, while you have already completed your fiat escape.

SBF used FTT as collateral, repeatedly engaging in collateralization, borrowing, repurchasing, and driving up prices between FTX and Alameda, forming a completely closed-loop, seemingly risk-free nested cycle. However, he used a centralized ledger and his own platform, lacking the transparency and decentralized illusion of on-chain.

What you are proposing essentially replicates this structure on-chain, using the shell of real securities and the anchoring of compliant stablecoins to give it "legitimacy," but its core remains collateral value manipulation + debt cashing out + liquidity transfer + targeted collapse.

This is an advanced version of the FTT explosion script.

About Regulation

Cross-chain is essentially a technical-level "regulatory escape route." When users hold regulated assets (like USDC or tokenized TSLA) on a compliant chain (like Base, Ethereum mainnet), these assets are subject to clear identity binding, source of funds audits, and compliance obligations.

However, once users bridge these assets to a target chain (like Arbitrum, Solana, Blast, or any L2 chain), the original assets are typically frozen in the bridge's locked contract, and a "mapped asset" (wrapped token) is generated on the target chain. This wrapped asset is legally and technically a new on-chain native asset, no longer directly controlled by custodians like Circle or Coinbase, and thus no longer directly within the compliance domain.

At this point, regardless of how compliant the addresses on the regulatory chain are, as long as the target chain does not conduct KYC, users immediately enter a free system with decoupled identities. More importantly, the regulatory framework itself is not based on "asset paths," but rather on "territorial" and "personal" jurisdiction. In other words, U.S. regulators can only govern U.S. persons or companies registered in the U.S., and cannot govern your operations with an anonymous wallet address on the Blast chain, zkSync, or even a DeFi protocol without physical backing. Regulators cannot prevent you from using cross-chain protocols like LayerZero, Wormhole, or Celer, as most of these protocols are decentralized deployments, unshuttable contract sets that only execute oracle and Merkle proofs, without needing to identify user identities or check bridging purposes.

If you further cross-chain using privacy-enhancing technologies (like Tornado Router, zk-rollup privacy bridges), on-chain behavior will become highly untraceable. Even if regulators grasp your source KYC identity, they cannot reconstruct your asset trajectory on the target chain.

Therefore, in the entire on-chain financial system, cross-chain bridges effectively serve as a "central hub for asset liberalization": they do not issue new funds or provide leverage, but they allow compliant assets to be converted into non-compliant forms, thus entering an unrestricted on-chain liquidity cycle.

This is not merely data transmission, but a process of stripping away compliance constraints. This also explains why, even though USDC is a 100% reserve regulatory asset, after being bridged, wrapped USDC (or any mapped asset) can still participate in a series of non-compliant activities such as leverage, lending, staking, and liquidity mining, indirectly releasing demand and liquidity utilization for the USDC itself. Regulators can currently only freeze the entry or original custodial assets on this side of the bridge, but cannot reclaim the mapped coins on the other side of the bridge, creating a path for real finance → on-chain credit → off-chain cash-out arbitrage, for which regulators have no technical sovereignty, judicial enforcement, or legislative definition of a regulatory closed loop.

Government Intentions

Let me guess first.

First, the U.S. government is well aware that in the irreversible trend of global digital finance development, if it does not "put the dollar on-chain," the future reserve anchoring of on-chain assets may shift towards Bitcoin, Ethereum, or even digital assets of the Renminbi.

This is already hinted at by Tether's global dominance: the vast majority of USDT's circulation is not in the U.S. but in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and South America, representing the most typical unofficial version of offshore dollars. If the dominance of dollar stablecoins is held by offshore black box systems rather than companies like Circle and Paxos that are bound by U.S. law, the U.S. will lose its voice in future global finance. Therefore, legalizing companies like Circle and Coinbase through the "2025 Stablecoin Act" is not a regulatory concession, but rather "incorporation"—creating an "on-chain version of Federal Reserve notes" through compliant stablecoins, allowing global users to unknowingly choose the dollar as their on-chain reserve asset.

Secondly, the U.S. capital markets pride themselves on their vast pools of equity and bond base assets, with their main export being not products, but trust in assets and systems.

In today's rapidly expanding on-chain finance, the U.S. allows tokenized TSLA, tokenized T-bills, and other real financial assets to be legally mapped to the blockchain, essentially to ensure that global funds can still "only mint, borrow, and settle around U.S. assets," thereby maintaining dominance over financial data and risk pricing systems. The regulatory authorities are certainly aware of the leverage nesting in on-chain DeFi and the regulatory void in cross-chain, but they allow all of this to exist because the dollar remains the entry point for all bridges, the endpoint for all settlements, and the center for all valuation anchors. In this structure, even if the U.S. does not directly control every chain, it controls the "language of value" across all chains.

In short, the U.S. government does this not because they believe on-chain is safe, nor because they wish for DeFi to thrive freely, but because this is their only realistic choice to ensure the dollar dominates the on-chain world: only by putting the dollar and U.S. stocks on-chain, and making Circle and Coinbase the "Citibank of the DeFi world," can they qualify to sit at the main table of future financial order.

This is a high-dimensional financial strategic arrangement, allowing you to go wild, allowing you to gamble, but all gambling tables must use dollar chips, bet on U.S. assets, and settle through the Federal Reserve route.

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。