92% Liquidation Thresholds and 1% Liquidation Penalty with partial liquidations can give you a bit more certainty

More deposits are put to work on Fluid than any major lending protocol in DeFi 🌊 According to @Blockworks data, Fluid consistently maintains the highest Loan-to-Deposit Ratio (40–50%). More capital borrowed. Less capital sitting idle. #1: Fluid #2: Jupiter Lend (Powered by Fluid)

No user funds were lost or ever at risk. No user accounts were compromised. The Fluid Protocol was never compromised and continued working as expected. fluid.io (our frontend) ran normally and sits in a fully separate environment. No team members were compromised in any capacity $FLUID

Smart contracts and governance is the best protection against any risks in DeFI Offchain components have a lot of unforeseen vectors of attack. In this case, our systems worked perfectly fine but issue came from a loophole in external infra. The silver lining here is that this incident proves that separation is clean, protocol and users couldn’t be unaffected, our systems had no issues and there is a room for improvement eg reducing dependencies on external components

RT @0xfluid: x.com/i/article/206163085031…

there’s been a lot of allegations coming from a specific project regarding this event and many others in the last weeks i tried to stay out of it but it’s reaching levels that call for a response 1) first allegation was that they took an unsecured loan to repay bad debt caused by the Resolv hack this was a total misrepresentation of what happened the bad debt was already there on the balance sheet it was just moved from many user wallets to a Fluid owned multi-sig to subsequently be repayed the net position never changed 2) then there was some FUD regarding the Lite ETH vault but that was so incomprehensible and flawed that i don’t even know what to say other than this vault is perfectly fine The Fluid treasury itself had a few million in this vault and withdrew it to repay Resolv debt 3) now regarding today’s news which is obviously super unfortunate, they are saying two things at the same time a) they were trying to sweep it under the rug b) a whale having knowledge of the situation was withdrawing USDC from Fluid so which one is it? either they sweep under the rug or they are telling people but it can’t be both lol the incident happened 3 days ago, no user funds were at risk and they were still investigating the root cause and taking steps to mitigate risks like rotating keys etc. there was never any intention not to disclose you can say what you want abt Fluid but to allege that they are bad actors is preposterous especially coming from certain people Fluid guys have been building in DeFi long before these people and will be here long after

Fluid consistently has the highest loan-to-deposit ratio among all lending protocols we currently track

RT @0xfluid: We identified and contained a compromise affecting our off-chain merkle rewards distribution infrastructure. Importantly: •…

The lending APY is now even more insane. 27.5% APR on the USDC lent on Fluid just because a few whales have recently withdrawn their capital. It's by far the best opportunity for USDC right now.

USDC on Fluid Ethereum earning ~37% right now 👀🌊 fluid.io/lending/1

LAAS is going to be a game changer for all asset issuers. Usually, we have to several calls explaining Fluid, its tech and how asset issuers can leverage it to build deep liquidity, grow and distribute. Now just a simple message outlining liquidity depth and cost is enough. Fully managed, end to end. Excited for our first partners to roll out imminently.

- Fluid Lite ETH last 7d APY at 6.12% - Fluid Lite USD last 7d APY at 8.09% 1 click deposits & 1 click withdrawals 🌊🌊🌊 fluid.io/lite/1

ETH Lite has never had losses, even during the deepest of bear markets when ETH borrow rates spike. Due to supply shock across Defi, withdrawals were paused, we're now back online. Set and forget while risk, leverage and liquidity are all managed for you.

0 losses after weeks of sky high ETH borrow rates is crazy work

A few days later later, @solana is still trending on X ...just at very different levels

The aerodrome cabal is probably the most toxic and net negative force in this space On one side you have efforts like DeFi United, where the whole space rallied to scramble together coverage for Aave's bad debt after the Kelp incident. A collective response to a collective problem. On the other side you have Fluid, which made the honorable decision (with zero obligation to do so) to cover the ~$8m in bad debt that USDC and USDT depositors were exposed to from the Resolv incident. Alone. No external help. Putting users first. And what does aerodrome do? Instead of building anything resembling a useful product beyond their ponzinomics, they spend their time and energy trying to insinuate wrongdoing and cast doubt on Fluid's solvency (knowing very well that for any lending protocol, FUD around solvency is the most dangerous thing). From my read, and that is only what is public and what i can see onchain is that Fluid decided to cover the bad debt with their business treasury. Structurally identical to Aave using its treasury to cover the Kelp hack, with the one difference that Fluid is socering all the bad debt alone. To execute, they replaced the bad debt with an unsecured credit line originally approved for another purpose. This did not worsen the position of any USDC or USDT depositor. It transitioned the system from a state of bad debt to a state of solvency backed by an unsecured loan against Fluid itself. To suggest USDC and USDT depositors were put at harm through this step is braind dead. They transitioned from a state of bad debt of 8 m to being creditors to an 8m credit line to Fluid, which in the worst case (Fluid not paying it down) would place them in the original situation to begin with, a situation of 8m in bad debt. Obviously Fluid only did this because it is clear from their on chain treasury and the strength of their business that they can and will pay down that credit this week. Was it necessary to do it this way? Yes it seems clear they had to settle with Resolv quickly, and unwinding treasury positions in that timeframe wasn't feasible. Should they have communicated the intermediate step better? Probably, to prevent any confusion. In any case, instead of celebrating Fluid for choosing to cover its users (something vault curators on Morpho have not done) the aerodrome cabal desperately tries to spin it into a scandal. From where I sit, Fluid has consistently put its users first. This was the first instance of bad debt on Fluid lending market, but they also covered all losses in the Lite ETH vault that came from market conditions creating negative carry. Again, no obligation. Spiking ETH borrow rates are a known risk every staked ETH looper accepts in exchange for the elevated yield in normal regimes. Two different cultures. One builds, absorbs losses, protects depositors. The other tweets.