Built & operating Yieldcoin - https://xitter.cf/t.co/C0SlnSxFAl - with CRE & CCIP | @chainlink Chromion grand winner | Featured by @CyfrinUpdraft | Looking for work
Joined December 2024
- Tweets1.4K
- Following338
- Followers604
- Likes7.2K
yieldcoin generating a net of 7.68% (this is after the protocol takes its 1% fee)
total value of $YIELD (CA:0xab83ba0bc3c4fee04fe4ad5df914f86f5f31c45d on @base @buildonbase) is up 0.11% since launching 8 days ago
currently operating as private financial infrastructure
yieldcoin is live and has been for over a week, I just havent announced it yet.
in that time it has earned 5% apy. that number would probably be higher but for the first 3 nights, rebalancing happened at 0:00UTC into aavev3 on eth for around 12-13%
every night a whale would withdraw $133m around 23:30, then deposit again around 0:10. so rates would spike during the rebalance window and then drop sharply for the rest of the day
the biggest design mistake made apparent by deployment was not having a dedicated role for setting ccip gas limits. this functionality is controlled by CONFIG_OPERATOR_ROLE, which also sets crosschain vaults - a much more security critical operation. next time, or in a future upgrade, I'd separate them so the vault setter is a timelock msig and gas limits is a secure eoa
annoyingly after deploying to mainnet, the ai powered property workflow im building identified an optimization in the parent vault recovery, but it does not warrant an entire upgrade by itself
yieldcoin is live and has been for over a week, I just havent announced it yet.
in that time it has earned 5% apy. that number would probably be higher but for the first 3 nights, rebalancing happened at 0:00UTC into aavev3 on eth for around 12-13%
every night a whale would withdraw $133m around 23:30, then deposit again around 0:10. so rates would spike during the rebalance window and then drop sharply for the rest of the day
the biggest design mistake made apparent by deployment was not having a dedicated role for setting ccip gas limits. this functionality is controlled by CONFIG_OPERATOR_ROLE, which also sets crosschain vaults - a much more security critical operation. next time, or in a future upgrade, I'd separate them so the vault setter is a timelock msig and gas limits is a secure eoa
annoyingly after deploying to mainnet, the ai powered property workflow im building identified an optimization in the parent vault recovery, but it does not warrant an entire upgrade by itself
Now that Yieldcoin is basically done (launch sign off contingent on few operational items), I'm building an AI workflow for property identification and scaffolding invariant/fv suites based on the Contract Level approach.
I'm using @chainlink's new CCIP Vault Adapter repo for documenting how I manually identify properties and as the initial candidate for this workflow.
CCIP Vault Adapters are complementary to Yieldcoin and share a lot of similar concepts like crosschain recovery state.
An interesting design decision that stood out so far is invalid source chain reverts in the CrossChainERC4626Adapter are caught in recovery state, whereas in Yieldcoin, they are rejected outright. Same for validating the token amounts.
Crosschain operations in Yieldcoin are treated as protocol-level, with recovery advancing already-approved state transitions.
Whereas the erc4626 adapter appears to treat them as per-user operations, with recovery returning funds to the original sender/refund address.
Comparing the DefiLlama response for base APY to the new Yieldcoin relay, which uses the official Aave API and calculates Compound using onchain state.
these are the 12 supported strategies. aave v4 on eth is the current optimal
annoying set back but can (probably) be worked around by replacing defillama api call in yieldcoin relay with calls to aave's official api and calculating compound apy directly from onchain state
dont even need to redeploy to cre
yieldcoin live on 6 mainnets by end of month
defillama announced on 22nd sep that yield endpoints will be gated by $3000/year from nov 13th
A personal highlight from @ZealynxSecurity Yieldcoin v2 audit findings:
a certain recovery path could misrepresent the TVL of the system by including funds saved in a recovery mode, that were already designated for an epoch net-withdraw cohort
the fix was to exclude the recovery amount from tvl reporting when intended for epoch withdraws, but still include it when intended for rebalances
there's something really beautiful about a niche execution path finding
Highly recommend reading @ZealynxSecurity audit report for Yieldcoin v2's core evm logic - lots of very valuable insights for crosschain security and recovery: github.com/ZealynxSecurity/a…
