Recently, I noticed an interesting phenomenon — a stablecoin USD1 was actually traded up to $1.0039. Keep in mind, stablecoins are supposed to be pegged to $1, yet it was suddenly trading at a premium.

At first glance, it seems crazy, but the underlying logic is quite simple: an annualized yield approaching 20%. Do the math — even if you enter at the premium, holding for a month still yields an annualized return of 15%. Once this calculation is clear, many people flock in.

Does this scene look familiar? Almost every market cycle, you see: in pursuit of that tempting APY, people ignore the potential pitfalls ahead. One high-yield opportunity after another, pulling us in like a magnet.

But what’s truly worth pondering is: what does this reflect? Essentially, it’s the low interest rate environment and asset scarcity. Our desire for stable returns has become so strong that we’re willing to pay extra costs for this small reward, even risking some unseen dangers.

The problem is, how fragile is this high yield built on subsidies? Once the subsidies stop, or the product logic shifts, or a sudden crisis occurs, that premium could vanish instantly, and the principal invested might be at risk. Haven’t we learned enough lessons from history?

So, we need to think about a more fundamental question: is there a kind of genuine yield that doesn’t require us to pay a premium, nor rely on continuous subsidies from a centralized team, but instead comes from the value growth of a transparent, sustainable, and ever-growing ecosystem?

This is exactly the direction some on-chain protocols focused on "real yield" are exploring. They’ve changed their approach — instead of chasing short-term premiums, they aim to make participants long-term holders of the entire system’s value. In this model, your returns come from the actual value generated by the system, not from bubbles inflated by subsidies.

Compared to that, this logic is indeed more solid. After all, true wealth accumulation has never been built on fireworks-like subsidies.