I have been thinking about a certain on-chain revenue solution recently. The more I write, the clearer I get——it’s not really a project, but a path.

A path that allows the entire system to last longer.

And right now, this track is stuck at a critical point: how to survive.

Looking back over the past few years, what have people been digging into? Rapid expansion, astonishing return promises, exciting stories.

But now, the voices have changed. Users are starting to ask another set of questions:

Is the capital safe to put in?
Are the returns real or just a game of probabilities?
Can risks be seen through in advance?
Who will bear the brunt when the system crashes?
Are stablecoins really stable?
Can the entire architecture withstand extreme market conditions?

What does this indicate? The crazier the market, the more participants want stability. The more volatile the ups and downs, the more the system needs to have "noise isolation" capabilities.

One direction that has been consistently pursued is pragmatically lowering the entry barriers for on-chain revenue systems——especially the risk thresholds.

**Why do systems tend to fail easily?**

Reviewing those protocols that have collapsed, the reasons are actually just a few:

Collateral assets fluctuate too wildly; stablecoin design flaws are numerous; liquidation mechanisms respond sluggishly; risks spread chaotically across different assets; driven purely by emotions, lacking solid risk control logic.

The root cause lies in one place——the system has not established a true "pressure absorption" mechanism.