Good evening, family. I am Azu. During this time, I have systematically gone through the Lorenzo system again—not to find a 'new story,' but to figure out whether it is now more like a DeFi project or has grown into a team that operates as an 'on-chain asset management company.' The latest long article from Binance Academy directly defines Lorenzo as 'an asset management platform that brings traditional financial strategies to the blockchain in a tokenized form,' with the core concept of using OTF (On-Chain Traded Fund) to package a basket of strategies into a token, allowing ordinary users and institutions to create portfolios on-chain just like buying funds. This is already two different worlds compared to the previous farming playstyle of 'single pool high APY, without discussing any positions behind it.'
The most intuitive new action recently revolves around the USD1+ OTF. The official announcements and tweets continuously emphasize that USD1+ is their flagship stablecoin yield product, using a “triple yield structure”: one part of the position is the US Treasury and other RWA fixed income behind USD1, one part is the neutral strategies performed by centralized quantitative teams, and one part is engaged in lending and LP on-chain, with all yields ultimately settled into USD1, then reflected through the price or balance changes of USD1+ / sUSD1+. This setup is now practically receiving deposits on the BNB Chain mainnet, no longer remaining in the testnet demo stage, which is why Binance Academy and several CEX research papers have singled out “USD1+ OTF” for discussion — its structure, simply put, compresses the traditional world’s “money market fund + multi-strategy hedge fund” into an on-chain product.
The article on Binance Square (Bringing Institutional Finance onto the BNB Chain) actually explains Lorenzo's pace over the past two years quite clearly: first run a testnet on the BNB chain, refine daily net value updates, redemption mechanisms, fee designs, and only then dare to open mainnet positions; at the same time, perform audits and reserve compliance space, acknowledging that they have to face real-world custody, regulation, and counterparty risks, rather than just closing the door to indulge in self-satisfaction. This “first refine the toolbox before running traffic” pace may not seem as sexy for retail investors, but for those who really want to move large amounts of capital onto the chain, it is arguably more important than a short-term pump.
Many people think Lorenzo is just a “stablecoin wealth management platform,” but if you look at another article on Binance Square (quietly building one of the strongest Bitcoin foundations), you will find that it actually started with BTC. The team first used Babylon to create stBTC, turning the originally idle BTC into LST that can earn staking yields, and then layered on a tactical LPT/YAT structure to separate principal and income rights; meanwhile, with the enzoBTC standard of 1:1 collateralized BTC, this set of BTC assets can flow freely across multiple chains. After this, you will find that Lorenzo wants to occupy the position of the “Bitcoin liquidity financial layer”: helping you transform BTC into valuable instruments while trying to maintain its usability across multiple chains.
Above that is the BANK and veBANK layer, the “rule system.” Platforms like Weex and CMC have recently been re-educating about BANK: a total supply cap of 2.1 billion, deployed on the BNB Smart Chain, users can lock BANK into veBANK to unlock additional features and rights. The latest article on Binance Square specifically discussing veBANK directly points out that most DeFi dies from “incentive misalignment” — short-term holders just want to pump, users only care about high APY, while developers need long-term funding. Lorenzo's design links “who has a say, who shares more profits” to the locking time: the longer you lock, the more veBANK and protocol revenue you get, while those who just want to make a quick gain are naturally filtered out. How far this model can go depends on execution, but in terms of design, it is indeed much clearer than the old path of “issuing coins — pumping — inflation — going to zero.”
From the perspective of “I am Azu,” I now see Lorenzo more like a “toolbox” rather than a single project. For an ordinary on-chain user, it at least provides three completely different asset layers: the first layer is a “cash management account” made with USD1+ / sUSD1+, suitable for turning stablecoins that originally just sat in exchange balances into income-generating assets with transparent sources; the second layer is the “Bitcoin enhancement layer” built with stBTC and enzoBTC, giving structured yields to BTC that would originally just sleep in cold wallets; the third layer is the “risk ticket + equity ticket” of BANK / veBANK, upgrading you from a pure user to a participant who cares about the long-term success or failure of the protocol. You can completely use only the first two layers, treating it as a tool; or after understanding it clearly, explore the third layer with a small portion of your position.
Of course, all of this is built on the foundation of USD1, which itself carries a strong macro and political halo. The WLFI official positions USD1 as an “upgraded dollar stablecoin,” claiming it is fully backed by US dollars and US government money market funds, targeting institutions, individuals, and DeFi participants. Meanwhile, mainstream media's in-depth investigations into WLFI and the Trump family are also there: from billions in financing to the ambiguous relationships with regulation and policy, to USD1's role in large transactions, these cannot simply be treated as “trivial gossip unrelated to risk.” For Lorenzo's users, this means that while you enjoy the convenience and yield brought by USD1, you must also incorporate this layer of macro and political variables into your risk assessment, rather than just looking at whether the on-chain contracts have been safely audited.
If I were to compress these latest updates into a single route executable for ordinary players, I would arrange my pace like this. Step one, spend time reading the Lorenzo article from Binance Academy and a few exchange research papers, trying to understand questions like “What is OTF?”, “Where does the USD1+ yield come from?”, “What does stBTC and enzoBTC do?”; Step two, using a small amount of your capital that you don’t mind risking, practically test USD1+ or sUSD1+ on the BNB chain, and add a little BTC to try stBTC, completing the process of subscription, net value display, and redemption, to see if you can accept this pace and experience; Step three, if you find yourself starting to get used to using Lorenzo as a “wealth management platform” for stablecoins and BTC, then study the BANK/veBANK model, considering whether you are willing to use a small portion of your position to bear the long-term risks of being a “shareholder,” rather than just being a participant in a traffic event.
For me, Lorenzo's latest series of actions — endorsement from Binance Academy, USD1+ mainnet operation, polishing BTC-end products, and public breakdown of the veBANK model — essentially tells the market one thing: what they want to do is a real business, not just a speculative target in a cycle. You may not like the political flavor of WLFI, you may question the sustainability of RWA and quantitative strategies, but as long as you have seriously looked at its products and rules before deciding whether to participate, at least this time you are looking at CeDeFAI with an “investor's standard” rather than a “gambler's mentality.” As for how the price and sentiment of BANK will move, I will leave that to the market and time to answer.
