For a long time, DeFi fixed income has been labeled as 'niche, high-risk, quick profit' — either relying on token subsidies to sustain short-term high yields or suffering from liquidity depletion after asset locking, making even traditional institutions feel 'this is a small circle game'. However, TreehouseFi aims to break this perception: it does not create 'one-time high-yield products', but builds a 'fixed income ecosystem' relying on decentralized interest rate benchmarks (DOR) and cross-chain liquid staking assets (tAssets), enabling DeFi fixed income for the first time to possess the capability of 'standardization, replicability, and interfacing with traditional markets', and is even becoming the 'core hub' connecting the crypto ecosystem with the trillion-level traditional fixed income market.
I. Reconstruction of Fixed Income Logic: From 'Product Thinking' to 'Ecological Thinking'
The most disruptive aspect of TreehouseFi is its shift of DeFi fixed income from 'single product competition' to 'ecological system construction' — while others ponder 'how to increase yields by another 1%', it is considering 'how to make the entire fixed income market more efficient'.
DOR is not 'another interest rate indicator', but rather a 'on-chain interest rate operating system'. Traditional DeFi interest rates are 'protocol-defined', with Aave quoting 5% and Compound quoting 6%, making it impossible for users and institutions to compare horizontally; however, DOR aggregates the real data from leading platforms such as Lido and Rocket Pool through a complete process of 'node quoting - data cleaning - weighted consensus' to generate a benchmark interest rate recognized across the industry. Now, not only does CoinGecko regard DOR as an official reference, but Aave also plans to use DOR to replace its internal interest rate model, and even traditional asset management institutions design on-chain products directly based on DOR's TESR data — this means DOR is no longer just a 'tool of TreehouseFi', but the 'interest rate infrastructure' of the entire industry, with all subsequent fixed income products likely to revolve around it, reflecting an 'ecological thinking' far beyond the framework of a single product.
tAssets is not 'another liquid staking token', but rather a 'cross-chain fixed income asset engine'. It addresses not just 'staking yields', but also 'maximizing asset value across all chains': users holding tETH can earn basic staking yields on Ethereum, automatically capture lending rate differentials on Arbitrum, and cross-chain to Mantle for liquidity mining — all supported by a 'dynamic arbitrage algorithm + native cross-chain architecture', allowing assets to 'come alive' across different chains instead of being 'locked up'. Currently, tAssets' cross-chain trading volume accounts for 45% of total ecosystem trading volume, with 28% of 65,000 users reallocating assets across chains, indicating it has transformed from 'single-chain assets' to 'cross-chain yield carriers', which embodies the implementation of ecological thinking.
II. Leap in Revenue Model: From 'Token Subsidies' to 'Cash Flow Support'
Many DeFi fixed income 'high yields' rely on 'issuing new tokens to subsidize old users', but once the subsidies stop, the yields become 'exposed'. However, TreehouseFi's yields rely on 'real cash flow', which is the true core for sustainable long-term operation — it transforms fixed income from a 'speculation game' into a 'serious business'.
Its cash flow comes from three major sectors, and is continuously growing: first is DOR data service fees, where enterprises or protocols pay according to the frequency of DOR data calls, with an average daily call volume of 6,200 times and monthly revenue of $150,000; second is tAssets operation service fees, where users pay 0.1%-0.3% in fees for cross-chain, arbitrage, or staking, with monthly income of $90,000; third is ecological cooperation revenue sharing, where cooperation with protocols like Aave and Pendle yields a 10% profit share, with monthly income of $180,000. Combined, the total average monthly revenue reaches $420,000; this is not 'pie in the sky', but real revenue.
More critically, the cash flow distribution logic: 50% goes to TREE stakers, 30% is injected into the ecological fund, and 20% incentivizes the team (with a 4-year linear unlock). This distribution directly links 'ecological growth' with 'user returns' — the more DOR is called, the more cash flow there is, and the more dividends stakers receive; the more tAssets users there are, the higher the service fees, allowing the ecological fund to support more projects, which in turn enhances the value of tAssets. By September 2025, the TREE staking rate is stable at 68%, and the ratio of circulating market value to TVL (MV/TVL) is only 0.12, far below the industry average of 0.3, indicating that the token value has not yet kept pace with the growth of ecological cash flow. This 'cash flow-driven' model is much more reliable than 'token subsidies'.
III. Breaking the Institutional Entry Barrier: From 'Superficial Compliance' to 'Full-Process Adaptation'
Traditional institutions do not want to enter DeFi fixed income, but are afraid of 'stepping into pitfalls' — either being non-compliant and facing regulatory penalties, or lacking asset security guarantees, or products not aligning with risk control habits. The strength of TreehouseFi lies in breaking down 'institutional concerns' into specific issues and addressing them one by one, rather than just slapping on a 'compliance label'.
First is 'compliance without cutting corners': it not only obtains a license from one region but has completed full registration in major global financial markets — U.S. MSB, EU MiCA, Singapore MAS, covering the regions most active for institutions. More importantly, it ensures 'detail compliance', for instance, EU users must complete KYC to use the compliant version (Citadel), U.S. users cannot participate in high-leverage arbitrage, which are all 'hard requirements' for institutional risk control. TreehouseFi has done this in advance, so institutions do not have to research the regulations in various places themselves.
Secondly, 'asset security is visible and verifiable': institutions fear 'losing money and not being able to find it', TreehouseFi entrusts assets to compliant custodians like Fireblocks and Anchorage Digital, using a 2/3 multi-signature management — to move funds, at least two custodians must agree; Chainalysis's on-chain monitoring system tracks asset flows in real-time, allowing tracing of each transaction; KPMG issues monthly audit reports, proving that assets and accounts match. This triple safeguard of 'custody + monitoring + auditing' has reassured eight institutions to bring in $280 million, accounting for 52% of total TVL, equivalent to institutions voting with their funds, validating its safety standards.
Finally, the 'products conform to institutional habits': institutions do not engage in 'short-term speculation', they want 'long-term, stable, predictable' returns. TreehouseFi customizes 'fixed-rate products' for institutions, for example, locking for one year, with returns calculated based on the average interest rate of DOR, with fluctuations not exceeding ±0.5%, as stable as buying government bonds; it also offers 'interest rate hedging tools', so if institutions fear future rate decreases, they can buy contracts in advance to lock in returns — these are all familiar strategies for institutions in the traditional market, simply transferred seamlessly to the blockchain, making them easier to accept.
IV. Heightened Ecological Barriers: From 'First-Mover Advantage' to 'Irreplicable Network Effects'
Many believe TreehouseFi's advantage lies in 'getting ahead', but actually its barriers are 'network effects + data accumulation + compliance costs', making it extremely difficult for newcomers to replicate.
The first barrier is the 'data barrier': the value of DOR lies in the accumulation of historical data — it has already gathered 180 days of interest rate data from Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Mantle, covering various market conditions including bull and bear markets, and extreme scenarios, which serve as the core basis for institutions to assess risk and design products. Even if new protocols replicate DOR's mechanism, they would need at least six months to accumulate sufficient data and also have to convince the industry to recognize it; during this time, TreehouseFi has long transformed its data advantage into a cooperation advantage, with 15 leading protocols now integrated with DOR, making it extremely difficult for new protocols to seize market share.
The second barrier is the 'network effect of ecology': TreehouseFi's ecosystem is not a 'protocol stack of protocols', but rather an 'interconnected value network' — Aave uses tAssets as collateral, enhancing its own liquidity; Pendle uses DOR for derivatives pricing, increasing product variety; RWA projects use tAssets for staking endorsement, solving liquidity issues. The more these partners rely on TreehouseFi, the harder it is to leave — if Aave switches to other staking assets, users must readjust, which is too costly; if Pendle changes its interest rate benchmark, all previous derivatives data becomes wasted. This 'binding ecosystem' makes it difficult for newcomers with better technology to disrupt an already formed cooperation network.
The third barrier is the 'compliance cost barrier': TreehouseFi spent $20 million and 12 months completing compliance registration in major global markets, and has built a dedicated compliance team. New protocols aiming to catch up must not only invest money but also wait for time, and regulatory policies are constantly changing; by the time they achieve compliance, TreehouseFi may have expanded into new compliance markets. This dual cost of 'time + money' keeps most small and medium protocols at bay.
V. RWA Integration Hub: From 'Participating in RWA' to 'Empowering RWA'
Now, many protocols claim to be 'doing RWA', but most merely 'move traditional assets onto the chain'; TreehouseFi is different — it 'empowers RWA with its own system', making RWA tokenization more efficient and secure, becoming the 'connector' between RWA and DeFi.
First is the 'solution to the RWA pricing problem': traditional RWA tokenization (such as on-chain government bonds) relies entirely on the issuer's 'guess', without a fair on-chain benchmark, making institutions hesitant to buy. TreehouseFi uses DOR to price RWA, for example, a certain on-chain government bond project references DOR's TESR data, with an issuance rate 0.3% lower than the market average, attracting institutions because the rate is 'based on evidence and verifiable', improving issuance efficiency by 70%.
Secondly, 'solving the RWA liquidity problem': the biggest issue with RWA tokens is 'no one buys or sells them'. TreehouseFi allows users to use tAssets as collateral to borrow RWA tokens, providing demand for RWA tokens while offering tAssets users another investment channel. For instance, a certain on-chain government bond token, after integrating tAssets staking, has seen liquidity increase by 55%, with daily trading volume rising from $100,000 to $550,000, finally transforming from 'no one asking' to 'people playing'.
More importantly, 'building RWA standards': TreehouseFi is transforming its system of DOR pricing, tAssets staking, and cross-chain circulation into a 'universal standard' for RWA tokenization — currently, three RWA projects are issuing assets using its standards, and more projects may follow. When the industry all adopts this standard for RWA, TreehouseFi will become the 'core hub' for RWA integration, rather than just a participant.
Conclusion
The true value of TreehouseFi is not in creating a 'profitable fixed income product', but in building a 'fixed income system that supports a trillion-dollar market' — DOR is the 'interest rate benchmark', tAssets is the 'cross-chain asset carrier', compliance is the 'ticket for institutional entry', ecology is the 'value network', and RWA integration is the 'incremental space'.
Now it has already attracted $280 million in institutional funds, 65,000 retail users, and 15 leading protocols; as more links come in and more RWA assets go live, it may truly become the 'industry infrastructure' for DeFi fixed income — just as Uniswap defined DeFi trading, TreehouseFi is defining DeFi fixed income.
For the industry, TreehouseFi proves that DeFi fixed income does not have to rely on 'high-yield speculation'; it can also grow by 'solving real problems and creating real value'. For investors, it is not a short-term 'hot target', but a long-term 'infrastructure target' — only when DeFi fixed income truly interfaces with the traditional trillion-level market does TreehouseFi's value begin to be released, and now may be the key moment to lay out this 'new fixed income system'.
