In the development process of the DeFi fixed income sector, the 'rigid architecture' has always been the core bottleneck restricting its move towards inclusivity - traditional products often adopt 'integrated packaging' design, binding yield rules, asset targets, and risk mechanisms into an indivisible 'finished product', making it impossible to adapt to different users' personalized needs (such as conservative users needing low risk and aggressive users pursuing high elasticity) and difficult to respond quickly to market changes (such as when the popularity of certain RWA assets rises, current products cannot quickly integrate). This 'one-size-fits-all' model leads to DeFi fixed income being limited to the professional user circle, making it hard to reach a broader ordinary audience.
The core breakthrough of TreehouseFi is not to launch a product with 'higher annualized returns' but to construct a modular protocol architecture: breaking down the core functions of DeFi fixed income (such as yield calculation, risk control, scenario adaptation) into independently combinable modules, allowing users to 'build blocks' according to their needs and enabling developers to quickly iterate scenarios based on modules. This architectural innovation not only solves the 'poor adaptability' problem of traditional products but also provides a technical foundation for the inclusivity of DeFi fixed income - without requiring users to master specialized knowledge or developers to build from scratch, truly realizing 'demand as service'.
One, the dilemma of traditional architecture: why is it difficult for DeFi fixed income to break through the 'professional circle'
To understand the value of TreehouseFi's modular architecture, one must first confront the three inherent flaws of traditional DeFi fixed income's 'rigid architecture'. These flaws are not subjective assumptions but common issues exposed in long-term industry practice:
Firstly, the 'passivity' of demand adaptation. The rules of traditional products are 'platform-defined, user-accepted' - for example, if a platform launches a '90-day LST product with an annualized yield of 5.2%', users cannot realize 'depositing for 60 days' or 'mixing some RWA assets'. This passive acceptance model leads to a very low match between the product and user needs: young users need 'small and flexible' financial products, but can only choose 'large and long-term' products; family users need to 'save education funds in phases' but can only manually split funds, which is cumbersome and prone to errors.
Secondly, the 'inefficiency' of functional iteration. In traditional integrated architectures, any functional adjustment (such as accessing new public chains or adding risk mechanisms) requires a complete reconstruction of the entire product, taking weeks or even months. For example, if a certain platform wants to add a 'cross-chain yield optimization' feature to its existing product, it needs to rewrite contracts and test compatibility, during which existing services must be suspended, affecting user experience and missing market opportunities - when a certain public chain launches high-yield LSTs in 2024, many platforms lose a significant number of users to competitors that can quickly access it due to slow iteration.
Thirdly, the 'closed nature' of ecological collaboration. Traditional products are often 'independent closed loops'; assets and rules of different platforms cannot interoperate, making it difficult for developers to expand new scenarios based on existing products. For example, the LST assets held on platform A cannot be directly used for B platform's 'retirement plan'; third-party developers wanting to create a 'parent-child financial scenario' must build basic functions such as yield calculation and risk control from scratch, which is extremely high in barriers, ultimately leading to fragmentation in the industry ecosystem and difficulty in achieving economies of scale.
Two, modular architecture: the 'key to TreehouseFi's breakthrough'
The innovative core of TreehouseFi is to break down the 'integrated packaging' of traditional DeFi fixed income into three core modules - 'yield calculation module', 'risk control module', and 'scenario adaptation module', with each module operating independently yet freely combinable, and all modules developed based on open-source protocols to ensure transparency and compatibility. This architectural design is not a fictional 'conceptual innovation', but a practical implementation based on existing DeFi technologies (such as modular smart contracts and cross-chain protocols), with all functions verifiable through on-chain contracts.
1. Yield calculation module: making 'yield rules' customizable
The annualized rules of traditional products are 'fixed and unchangeable', while TreehouseFi's 'yield calculation module' breaks down yields into three configurable units: 'basic yield + scenario subsidies + ecological dividends', allowing users to choose combination methods based on their needs:
• Basic yield unit: connecting mainstream stable assets (such as USDC staking, government bonds RWA), with an annualized yield of 3.5%-4.5% as the yield base, available for all users to choose;
• Scenario subsidy unit: bound to user scenarios, for example, choosing the 'retirement scenario' can receive an additional 0.3%-0.8% annual subsidy, and choosing a 'cross-chain scenario' can receive yield converted from gas fee subsidies, with subsidy rules dynamically adjusted by the protocol based on ecological data and publicly disclosed on-chain;
• Ecological dividend unit: additional income based on the growth of TreehouseFi's ecological TVL. When the ecological TVL increases by $1 billion, all users' yield calculation modules will automatically add a 0.1% annual dividend, with dividends sourced from service fee shares of ecological cooperation projects, details can be checked.
The advantage of this design is that users do not have to passively accept fixed annualized returns but can configure exclusive yield rules based on their own risk preferences and scenario needs - for example, conservative users can choose only 'basic yield units', while users pursuing high returns can add 'scenario subsidies + ecological dividends', and all calculation logic is open-source, allowing users to verify yields through on-chain tools to avoid 'dark box operations'.
2. Risk control module: making 'safety mechanisms' selectable
The risk mechanism of traditional products is 'one-size-fits-all', while TreehouseFi's 'risk control module' provides a three-tier selectable solution: 'basic protection + specialized protection + custom protection', covering the safety needs of different users:
• Basic protection: enabled by default, including underlying asset qualification review (e.g., RWA projects need to provide audit reports, LST projects need to disclose liquidation rules), asset pool isolation (different scenario asset pools are independent to avoid the spread of single-point risks), and all review results are publicly disclosed on-chain;
• Specialized protection: for specific risk scenarios, users can choose to enable options such as 'cross-chain risk protection' (covering cross-chain delays and asset loss risks, with platforms subsidizing part of the insurance costs) and 'market volatility protection' (when asset prices fluctuate beyond 10%, automatically switching 50% of assets to stablecoins, with users able to set the volatility threshold);
• Custom protection: allows users to adjust risk parameters according to their needs, such as long-term retirement users can set the 'volatility protection threshold' to 5%, while users pursuing high elasticity can set it to 20%. Parameter adjustment records are updated on-chain in real-time to ensure transparency.
Furthermore, TreehouseFi's risk control module is also linked with the 'ecological guarantee fund' - the guarantee fund comes from 10% of platform service fees and is publicly disclosed in real-time. When a protective measure cannot cover risks (such as short-term default of RWA projects), the guarantee fund will prioritize compensating user losses, and the use of the guarantee fund must be confirmed through on-chain voting to avoid abuse. This 'selectable + transparent' risk mechanism not only solves the problems of traditional products such as 'excessive protection reducing yields' or 'insufficient protection leading to risks' but also gives users autonomous control over asset safety.
3. Scenario adaptation module: making 'asset services' combinable
If the first two modules are the 'basic tools', then the 'scenario adaptation module' is the core of TreehouseFi connecting user needs - this module breaks down common financial scenarios (retirement, education, travel, spare change management) into three parameters: 'time period, purpose of funds, and operational preferences'. After users input parameters, the module automatically calls the 'yield calculation module' and 'risk control module' to generate a personalized solution:
• Time period parameter: such as '18 years (education funds)', '20 years (retirement)', '3 months (travel)', the module will adjust asset allocation based on the length of the period (long-term scenarios increase the proportion of low-risk RWA, while short-term scenarios increase the proportion of high liquidity assets);
• Purpose of funds parameter: such as 'rigid expenditure (tuition)', 'flexible expenditure (travel)', the module will enable the 'fund locking function' for rigid expenditures (cannot be redeemed arbitrarily before maturity to avoid misappropriation), and enable the 'flexible redemption function' for flexible expenditures (redemption arrival time shortened to within 10 minutes);
• Operational preference parameter: such as 'fully automatic' or 'semi-manual', fully automatic users have their asset allocation, yield reinvestment, and risk adjustment completed automatically by the module, while semi-manual users can choose their adjustment nodes, and the module will push reminders.
More importantly, the scenario adaptation module supports 'multi-scenario combinations' - for example, if users have simultaneous needs for 'retirement + travel', they can set '70% of the monthly contribution for retirement (long-term + rigid) and 30% for travel (short-term + flexible)' in the module, which will automatically split the funds to the corresponding plans without the user needing to manage it manually. This 'parameterized + combinatorial' scenario adaptation completely breaks the limitations of traditional products' 'single scenario', allowing DeFi fixed income to truly serve users' diverse needs.
Three, industry value: how modular architecture promotes the inclusivity of DeFi
TreehouseFi's modular architecture is not only for its own products but also provides a 'foundation for inclusivity' in the entire DeFi fixed income sector - its core value lies in three points:
Firstly, it lowers the user threshold. Ordinary users do not need to learn complex DeFi knowledge; they can simply input their own demand parameters, and the module can automatically generate solutions, with an operational difficulty level equivalent to traditional financial apps, yet enjoy the high yields and transparency of DeFi;
Secondly, it lowers the threshold for developers. Third-party developers do not need to build basic functions such as yield calculation and risk control from scratch; they can directly develop new scenarios (such as 'pet medical fund' or 'home down payment plan') based on TreehouseFi's modular protocol by simply calling existing modules and adjusting parameters, significantly shortening the development cycle and promoting ecological diversity;
Thirdly, it enhances industry efficiency. The modular architecture enables the interconnectivity of assets, rules, and scenarios, avoiding redundant construction in the industry - for example, the 'cross-chain yield module' developed by platform A can be called by platform B's 'retirement scenario', forming an ecological synergy effect, ultimately promoting the entire DeFi fixed income sector from 'fragmentation' to coexistence of 'standardization + personalization'.
Of course, the modular architecture also faces challenges - such as compatibility between modules, parameter synchronization in cross-chain scenarios, etc. However, TreehouseFi's practice has proven that when DeFi fixed income shifts from 'product thinking' to 'architecture thinking', and from 'passive adaptation' to 'active response', it can truly break down the barriers of professional circles and reach a broader ordinary user base. This may be the greatest revelation TreehouseFi offers the industry: the inclusivity of DeFi requires not only technological innovation but also a 'reconstruction' at the architectural level.
