Why Aspan
Traditional leverage tools (e.g., perpetual contracts) and lending protocols are not suitable for long-term investment. Aspan redefines on-chain leverage and yield through its unique mechanism design.
Comparison with Perpetual Contracts (Perps) Pain Point: If you hold a long BNB position during a bull market, you may be subject to annualized funding fees of 20% or even 100% due to long-side congestion. These fees will continuously erode your profits.
Holding Costs
High funding fees (paid every 8 hours)
0% funding fees (permanently free)
Liquidation Risk
Vulnerable to liquidation from price wicks
No forced liquidation (only net value decay)
Asset Nature
Synthetic asset
Spot leverage asset
Comparison with Lending Protocols Pain Point: In protocols like Venus, loop borrowing requires constant monitoring of the LTV (Loan-to-Value) ratio. A simple oversleep or on-chain congestion can lead to the liquidation of your collateral.
Operational Complexity
Complex (loop borrowing, collateral topping-up)
Simple (buy and hold)
Capital Efficiency
Low (requires over-collateralization)
High (built-in 3x leverage)
Psychological Pressure
High (constant fear of liquidation thresholds)
Low (no maintenance required)
Comparison with Traditional Stablecoins Pain Point: Traditional stablecoins like USDT/USDC depreciate due to inflation when idle in wallets, while most decentralized stablecoins lack sustainable yield sources.
Yield Source
None (0%)
Real yield (LST staking rewards)
Yield Rate Model
Relies on mining subsidies
Derived from native staking rewards of underlying protocol assets
Censorship Resistance
Centralized control
Decentralized & code-governed
Zuletzt aktualisiert