《Usual has nothing substantial》
1. Recently, there have been different opinions about Usual in the community.
On the surface, it seems good: by bringing off-chain RWA assets on-chain, issuing stablecoins, and then sharing RWA returns with holders. This is a very good story.
However, Usual does not hold up under scrutiny:
2. Bringing RWA assets on-chain is quite troublesome, involving legal compliance, information technology, and asset management issues.
Does Usual have the capability to expand its underlying assets? Unfortunately, no.
Currently, it can only rely on Hashnote to provide asset packages.
Without the ability to expand underlying assets, saying it will surpass USDT/USDC is premature.
3. The protocol also does not provide RWA underlying asset returns to Usual holders and USD0 holders.
Instead, it increases the issuance of Usual to holders, and they even need to stake. Even USD0 staking requires four years.
Where do the RWA asset returns go? They enter the protocol's treasury, controlled by the market makers, and as long as the market makers are willing, they can pocket it.
This is not fair.
4. Additionally, the mechanisms of Usual, USD0, and USD0++ tokens are not innovative. They are just the staking + LP gameplay from the DeFi era:
Playing LP + staking, taking users' real money, and purchasing Hashnote assets, while the underlying returns go into the pockets of the market makers.
The cooperation with Ena is also a mutual nesting, making each other's data look better, with no relation to RWA.
Overall, the Usual protocol has not accomplished much substantial work.
This is also a common issue with current RWA protocols; despite this, the market still assigns a high valuation.
