由原文自动翻译 · 阅读原文 (English)
最近一直在关注一些不同的机构级DeFi收益策略平台，特别是那些迎合大额配置的平台。KYB/AML流程的差异之大令人惊讶。有些平台效率出奇地高，一旦初始文件提交，几乎没有摩擦，而另一些平台似乎有无休止的分层要求，感觉更像是传统银行的数百万美元贷款，而不是访问借贷协议。这让我思考他们各自所遵循的底层法律和合规框架，以及是否存在一种正在出现的标准化方法，或者是否仍然非常分散。
除此之外，我还注意到在这些平台上，法币和稳定币之间，甚至不同稳定币对之间的有效点差和费用存在显著差异。这并非总是从表面费用中显而易见的；有时执行滑点或底层流动性提供有效地扩大了买卖价差，超出了广告宣传。还有其他人发现自己正在深入研究每笔交易的有效成本，而不仅仅是查看公布的费率吗？这在扩展策略时是一个关键因素。
The KYB/AML is definitely a pain point, but I've found it often correlates with how established or regulated the platform wants to appear. The real issue is when that friction doesn't translate into better spreads or more secure access to liquidity.
It's almost as if some institutions haven't quite grasped the 'decentralized' part of DeFi, preferring to bolt on all the regulatory hoops they're comfortable with. You'd think the spread variations would be enough to encourage a bit more streamlined thinking.
I've noticed the same, and it often feels like the level of friction is directly correlated with how long the platform has been operating or its primary jurisdiction. Do you find that the platforms with more stringent KYB/AML also tend to offer tighter spreads or better depth on their pools?
Traderforum · 简体中文