👀Introducing DeFi 3.0...@risechain founder @sam_battenally discusses the promise of @risextrade during a recent interview with The @dealflowpodcast and host @RealMissAI ⬇️ https://t.co/YdmmzJCSxN ...

morpho crossed $2b tvl during a complete architecture rebuild. isolated vaults instead of shared pools. TON integration just put 18% USDT yields one tap away from 950m telegram users. the real play is vault curators. early ones building track records become the trusted brands of defi 3.0. risk managers eating well. ...

Core Insights - The Origin blockchain project, initially promoted as the "world's first privacy anonymous payment ecosystem," has faced a dramatic decline, with its token price collapsing and over 500,000 investors reportedly at risk of losing their funds [1] Group 1: Project Overview - Origin claimed to be a "DeFi 3.0" project, attracting significant investment before its downfall [1] - The project was marketed as an "international project" launching simultaneously in multiple countries, targeting experienced cryptocurrency users [4] - It promised high annual returns of up to 79 times, leveraging a decentralized and fully on-chain operation model [6][8] Group 2: Economic Model and Incentives - The project utilized a token, LGNS, which offered returns every 8 hours, with a daily yield rate of no less than 1.2%, potentially reaching a monthly compounded return of 44% [6][13] - Origin's economic model included multiple reward mechanisms, such as staking rewards, a multi-level referral system, and a lottery-style bonus pool funded by transaction fees [13][19] - The project relied heavily on the control of the LGNS token for its economic sustainability, raising concerns about its long-term viability [13] Group 3: Market Performance - The token price initially surged from 50 to 82 units but later fell back to around 53 units, indicating a struggle to balance participant incentives and bubble control [15] - The project's structure and promotional strategies attracted many short-term traders, but it posed high entry barriers for average users [18]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the emergence of a blockchain project named "Oladin Origin," which masquerades as a DeFi 3.0 initiative but is revealed to be a Ponzi scheme that has defrauded over 500,000 investors, accumulating more than 10 billion yuan in funds [1][3][21]. Group 1: Project Overview - "Oladin Origin" claims to create the world's first privacy-focused payment ecosystem and a comprehensive Web3 financial ecosystem [1]. - The project attracted over 500,000 members and raised more than 10 billion yuan within nine months, leveraging the reputation of the Olympus DAO core team [3]. - The project outlines a three-phase blueprint, including the use of the algorithmic non-stablecoin LGNS as a financial ecosystem's foundation [7]. Group 2: Mechanisms of Deception - The project employs a complex economic model with six contract systems designed to create an illusion of a closed-loop economy [7]. - It promotes a misleading "economic flywheel theory" that obscures its Ponzi structure [7]. - Users are promised high static returns through staking LGNS, with claims of a daily return of 1.2%, equating to an annualized return of 44% [10]. Group 3: Recruitment and Incentives - The project features a multi-level marketing structure, allowing users to earn commissions through a 15-level referral system [12]. - A strict membership tier system incentivizes users to recruit others, with potential earnings of up to 25% from team performance [13]. Group 4: Control and Manipulation - The project falsely claims that each LGNS token is backed by a stable asset, creating a false sense of security [17]. - The project manipulates token prices through automatic adjustments based on market conditions, allowing the operators to control the market signals [18]. - The design of liquidity and reserve bonds serves as a mechanism for the project to cash out while delaying token sell pressure [19]. Group 5: Warning Signs of Fraud - Promises of unreasonably high returns, such as a daily return exceeding 1%, are indicative of a Ponzi scheme [21]. - The reliance on a multi-level recruitment system is a hallmark of pyramid schemes [22]. - Lack of transparency in contracts and the anonymity of the team raise red flags about the project's legitimacy [23]. - The project employs deceptive marketing tactics, claiming to be an international initiative without substantial operational backing [24].