PSE Trading：无清算协议到底是不是庞氏骗局

The author's flower source blockchain has developed to the most mature stage so far, and lending is one of its cores. In a bull market, lending is often the engine that starts the market. Investors tend to mortgage and lend, and at the same time, they can get more excess income. However, with the fading of the cryptocurrency market boom, the price drop often leads to the freezing point of serial clearing prices. In order to achieve the goal of an eternal bull market, many non-clearing agreements have been launched in the market to allow investors to enjoy excess income. At the same time, it will not face the risk of liquidation. This paper will sort out several common non-liquidation agreements in the market, and draw the conclusion first. The so-called non-liquidation is essentially to transfer the risk, but the wool is on the sheep. At the same time, investors have to bear the risk. The difference between non-liquidation agreements is that clearing in advance with other mortgaged assets is a typical example. A cross-chain agreement will establish various asset pools on various chains, such as platform currency. When users need to cross assets, they need to change the chain into another one. In the process of lending, it is necessary to change the synthetic assets generated by combustion into official stable currency, and in the process of changing into official stable currency, it will eventually deflate because of combustion and the user needs to pay every fee, so the loan does not charge interest. In addition, unlike the traditional loan agreement, the end user is mortgaged, so he does not need to pay attention to the increase, and he has never been liquidated or has been liquidated in advance. Who is paying for the risk without a settlement agreement if the agreement is not liquidated and there is no interest-free loan? The borrower can never pay back the money, but there is also an extreme situation. When the bull market comes, the lender will want to repay the money and get back more income because of the price increase. The process is as follows: change it into burning, and then burn it, and then it will be returned to the customer. In this process, it will be found that it will become the biggest variable to get back the mortgage. If there are too many people who repay the money, it will eventually lead to collapse. Therefore, the maximum amount is set, that is, the debt ceiling. At present, the upper limit is original, that is to say, the number that can be set is multiplied by the number that can be burned. According to the current price, we can get the value that can be loaned. Who is paying for the risk of no settlement agreement? In addition, the price ratio is also the key to the success of the agreement. The following two figures show that when the price of sum rises at the same time, the user will pay more than when the loan is burned, but when the price rises, the agreement will not be repaid. On the contrary, in the state of deflation, if the price rises far more than the rising price, more price agreements will be issued, which will lead to the collapse of the mechanism. Once the number of online agreements will reach the maximum, users will be forced not to lend more, and the assumed online agreements will also terminate all loan repayment behaviors until the price falls without casting more. It is not difficult to see who is paying for the risk without a settlement agreement. Only when the agreement keeps borrowing, it is not difficult to see the agreement itself. It is good deflation, but it can't stand the inflation of large-scale repayment, so this model is doomed to be small. If it wants to scale, it will be a tragedy. Secondly, because it also controls the amount of loans, the platform is much higher than other traditional lending platforms, and the low capital utilization rate is not conducive to the loan demand in mature markets. It is a mortgage lending platform, and its collateral is to be borne by outsourcing the clearing line to others. As long as there are always users taking over, it will not explode the position theoretically. For users, the risk of warehouse explosion is reduced, and there is more room to carry bills. For users who take over, they can get more income. The basic loan income is additional incentive. The loan process will be generated when the user mortgages, and the interest generated when the user can take it to the pool will eventually be given to the price that there are two ways to maintain. When the price is too high, part of the income will be given to subsidies. When the price is too low, part of it will be converted into borrowing cost subsidies. Who is paying for the risk without settlement agreement? So how can the project not be liquidated? It is assumed that the mortgage is in US dollars, and the liquidation price is in US dollars. When the liquidation occurs, the platform will first lock the collateral and then give the pledged income to the pledged income, so as to reserve a part of the original positions that exceed the income. However, the disadvantage of doing so is that the income that will be affected after the pledge rate goes up will lead to the decrease of the reserved positions. The platform will generate positions that were originally to be liquidated, and you can hold this when you return to the liquidation line. Part of it is converted into this way, compared with the traditional lending platform, there is an extra layer of excess income, not just loan interest. Of course, if you don't think it will rise to more than US dollars, you can also sell it in the secondary market. Many data and the secondary market are still in the early stage, and the author also makes a bold prediction. If you say it will be sold in the secondary market, you can get back your position at a lower price, and at the same time, you can get future excess income compared with covering positions. The risk of the agreement pays the bill, but the project also has a drawback. The project can only be developed in a bull market. Even if there is a big correction, there will be faith to provide liquidity. If the bear market comes, the market sentiment will drop to freezing point, and liquidity will dry up, which will also pose a big threat to the platform, and there may not be many users who are willing to come to the platform, because the agreement itself is to transfer all the risks to the body, and the interest will cover the loan interest rate. The Fed's interest rate hike wave has also led a number of non-clearing agreements, which is the most noteworthy and regulated. The biggest model is the US debt package tokens issued by American institutions, and the US debt yield rivets are used to distribute the US debt income to platform users for the packaged version of the issue. Users can cast the US debt income by simply entering it, so they can enjoy the US debt income. The biggest highlight is that the interest charged by the platform is always less than the US debt yield. Assuming that the US debt yield is the platform, the interest will be paid as a handling fee, which can mortgage the US debt package tokens to borrow interest-free but How to solve the problem of non-liquidation? In essence, the platform also adopts the logic of mortgaging US dollars and lending US dollars, which is not affected by other assets. At present, when mortgaging US debt of US$ 1 million, it can lend stable currency of US$ 1 million. When users want to get their own stable currency back, they will liquidate their own US debt and pay the same amount to users. Large users need to wait for three working days to deal with it, but there are also dangers. When they get the loan, if they make high-risk investments, they are at risk of not just redeeming US debt. All trust depends on the platform 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=63135