🐾Marektext not yet in the index
An YT is by definition a bet on the amount of yield received by holding the principal
14 July 2026
🐾Marektext not yet in the index
LPs are LPing for yield. The opportunity cost IS the loss. LPs paid for points in foregone yield (there was 5-15% APY yield available in other places with similar or even lower risk) the same way you paid in YT premium. Both groups paid, but only one got refunded.
And the logic of WHO got refunded is completely backwards:
YT buyers are the most SPECULATIVE participants in any points program: you buy a decaying asset knowing you eat 100% of it if the drop underdelivers. That is the trade, and it's why YT was priced the way it was. If I buy YT to farm points and the project never airdrops, I lose everything while LPs only lose the airdrop part. Cap turned that upside down: the only non-losers are the YT speculators, made whole while the people who provided the actual working TVL get 0.
Also, what YT holders received isn't an airdrop, it's a refund of a losing bet. Nobody refunds your losing options premium. So if the standard really is "nobody loses from our mistake," it applies to the LP/holder yield deficit against the Feb 4 published rates just as much as to your YT cost basis.
There's genuinely no principled reason for this ordering other than 1) the biggest YT bags sitting with team-adjacent wallets and 2) YT buyers understandably preferring the version where only they get paid.
Imagine a casino. For months it publicly invites LPs (the bankroll) and gamblers with a promised rewards program, and even publishes the exact bonus rates so everyone can calculate their payout to the cent. Then, after a year, the casino says: "Nevermind guys, nobody gets the rewards. But we WILL be compensating the losses of the gamblers, even though they inherently accepted the risk of losing all funds by gambling here."
The people who funded the house get nothing. The people who made the riskiest bets get their chips back.
Does that make sense to anyone?
And in this particular casino, the biggest gambler at the table appears to be (connected to) the Casino owner.
3lixbt (🗣,🤝)LPs are LPing for yield. The opportunity cost IS the loss. LPs paid for points in foregone yield (there was 5-15% APY yield available in other places with similar or even lower risk) the same way you paid in YT premium. Both groups paid, but only one got refunded.
And the logic of WHO got refunded
It’s completely pointless to explain here what LP, YT, PT, etc., entail. The fact is that, as an LP holder, you simply didn’t lose any money and you were receiving some yield. If you felt that other protocols offered more, you should have gone there instead of whining here now and being greedy. As you surely know, when you take a YT position, your investment is worth zero at maturity (but you earn a lot of points). So it’s clear that if the point system here doesn’t work, it’s quite logical that at least the original YT investments were returned, because YT holders actually lost whole those funds in fact.....again cUSD and LP holders they didn't lose anything. And since there was no profit here, those are also lost opportunity costs, same same. So if you're asking for some additional compensation for LP and cUSD holders, then YT holders must receive the same additional compensation as well. I don't like how they handled it either, but at least this way, no one really lost out on anything.
🐾MarekIt’s completely pointless to explain here what LP, YT, PT, etc., entail. The fact is that, as an LP holder, you simply didn’t lose any money and you were receiving some yield. If you felt that other protocols offered more, you should have gone there instead of whining here now and being greedy. As y
Pendle tokens are strictly defined within the underlying token. in the router every buy of YT or PT mints both from cUSD keeps one and dumps the other. the YTs bet on the yield the underlying token produces and pay the PTs to pass on that yield. now Cap essentially said the underlying cUSD in Pendle was worth 10% APR while normal cUSD was worth 0. the advertised bonus for Pendle was 2x on points (20x vs 10x). they ended up paying out infinity x for Pendle, despite that the implied APR would have been 0 if the participants had known the points are worth nothing. (with the arbitrary qualification that those who minted both and those who kept the YT portion of the LP received nothing )
ProclusPendle tokens are strictly defined within the underlying token. in the router every buy of YT or PT mints both from cUSD keeps one and dumps the other. the YTs bet on the yield the underlying token produces and pay the PTs to pass on that yield. now Cap essentially said the underlying cUSD in Pendle
Well said.
Just two short suggestions:
1. There’s no reason to restrict YT claims to 3 months. This amount should be fully allocated to your goal of reimbursing losses.
Having said that, it doesn’t make sense to essentially burn it, so consider simply extending it to 1 year.
2. Homestead ends next week, but in light of the suprise of Frontier after several months of silence, and Cap’s stated commitment to better communication, I strongly believe it would be prudent to make intentions known now.
If it’s negative news, revealing it now will be a lot better than waiting a week (or month) or two just to give everyone another gut-punch.
Conversely, if it’s positive news, revealing it now is likely to reduce anger and give people something to look forward to.
15 July 2026
DefiDebaucheryJust two short suggestions:
1. There’s no reason to restrict YT claims to 3 months. This amount should be fully allocated to your goal of reimbursing losses.
Having said that, it doesn’t make sense to essentially burn it, so consider simply extending it to 1 year.
2. Homestead ends next week, but
I believe Ben mentioned that they're not allowed to mention it before the campaign ends, so yeah, we kinda have to wait until then
🐾MarekIt’s completely pointless to explain here what LP, YT, PT, etc., entail. The fact is that, as an LP holder, you simply didn’t lose any money and you were receiving some yield. If you felt that other protocols offered more, you should have gone there instead of whining here now and being greedy. As y
Factually cUSD depositors lost 0.1% minting fee, in total a 6-figure number across all users.
hin_myI believe Ben mentioned that they're not allowed to mention it before the campaign ends, so yeah, we kinda have to wait until then
Part of "repairing trust with a track record" is better communication. And better communication would be to quantify what "not allowed" means.
Does it somehow have legal implications (what/why?); is it a stipulation of their raise? Some other reason?
Even if there is a good reason why it can't be revealed right this moment, setting expectations on when they intend to do so (the day it ends? A week later? a month?) is still better than "not allowed. bye".
Transparency is the bedrock of crypto.
16 July 2026
DefiDebaucheryJust two short suggestions:
1. There’s no reason to restrict YT claims to 3 months. This amount should be fully allocated to your goal of reimbursing losses.
Having said that, it doesn’t make sense to essentially burn it, so consider simply extending it to 1 year.
2. Homestead ends next week, but
Agree with this take, better to communicate this asap