Today we will look at the recently launched stablecoin project - Resolv, which is listed on exchanges such as Binance Alpha, OKX, Bybit, and is currently launching an airdrop. Although this stablecoin is also over-collateralized, I feel there are some issues after reviewing the overall picture. Let's examine its 'explosive points' and see if it will replicate the usual path.
Introduction
Resolv is a decentralized stablecoin protocol on Ethereum, aiming to create a crypto-native, sustainably yielding stablecoin - USR, without excessive collateralization.
1. Overview of Protocol Structure
USR is a stablecoin backed by Ethereum (ETH) and Bitcoin (BTC), pegged to the US dollar. It maintains a stable exchange rate of 1 USD through a Delta-Neutral (market-neutral) strategy.
RLP (Resolv Liquidity Pool) is the liquidity protection layer that provides insurance for USR and absorbs strategy risks.
Both types of tokens can be deposited as collateral (ETH or USDC/USDT) at a 1:1 ratio to mint, and can also be redeemed at any time. Here, we again see a 1:1 collateralization; it's worth noting that established stablecoins are all over-collateralized, where 100 units of assets allow for only 70% stablecoin, with the excess as margin. So who bears the risk in a 1:1 scenario?
2. How does USR maintain stability
Users can mint 1 USR by depositing the equivalent of 1 USD in ETH or stablecoins. The protocol will stake most of the ETH and set up short-term futures to hedge against ETH and BTC volatility, thereby stabilizing net asset value. If the price rises, it's fine as it means the user is over-collateralized, but if ETH drops, then this futures short position will make a profit!
But is this really insured? Because even if assets are used for shorting, there are still transaction fees or funding rates.
3. RLP's Insurance and Earnings Mechanism
Insurance function: If there are future losses on collateralized assets (e.g., futures funding errors, centralized counterparty risks, exchange system failures, etc.), these losses will first be borne by RLP to ensure that USR can still be redeemed for 1 USD.
Earnings mechanism: Collateralized assets generate returns (staking rewards + perpetual futures funding fees, etc.), distributed at the end of each 24-hour reward epoch:
- Basic yield (70%) is distributed proportionally between stUSR (created by staking USR holders) and RLP;
- Risk premium (30%) is entirely rewarded to RLP holders;
Losses will be fully absorbed by RLP.
Example explanation
Assuming the total pool funds are 100,000 USD, with 70k for USR and 30k for RLP:
If net profit in a certain period is 20k:
Base rewards: 20k × 70% = 14k, distributed proportionally;
Risk premium: 20k × 30% = 6k, all goes to RLP;
If there is a loss of 20k, then RLP decreases by 20k, while USR remains unaffected.
4. How does RLP stabilize USR?
Risk absorption: RLP is the first insurance pool, bearing all losses and completely isolating risks, ensuring that USR can be redeemed for 1 USD at any time.
Self-balancing design: When the RLP supply decreases (weakness), its yield will automatically increase to attract more liquidity; conversely, it will decrease when the supply increases. This achieves dynamic adjustment and helps maintain system health to some extent.
No excessive collateralization required: USR itself maintains 100% collateral, and the existence of RLP allows it to avoid the excessive collateralization required by traditional stablecoins, making it more capital efficient.
Protocol Data
Currently, the project's TVL is 350 million USD, of which USR has 210 million, and PLP has 130 million. The staking yield for USR is 4.8%, while the yield for RLP is 8.7%. It seems that this 4.8% yield is quite average, as we have seen many stablecoins offer high yields to stimulate interest when they first launch.
Financing Situation
On April 16, 2025, CoinDesk reported that Delta Neutral stablecoin protocol Resolv Labs announced the completion of a $10 million seed round of financing, led by Cyber.Fund and Maven11, with participation from Coinbase Ventures, Susquehanna, Arrington Capital, and Animoca Ventures.
This investment scale can be said to be marginal; these chickens and dogs are basically here to make money, and they probably won't invest money, just stand on the stage and take the coins.
Team
As follows, at least with real-name photo identification, likely Russian, as the alma mater is Moscow State University! There is nothing particularly impressive about the resume!
Token Economy
The total token supply is 1 billion, with 10% for airdrops, 40.9% for ecosystems and communities, 26.7% for teams and contributors, and 22.4% for investments. The team and investors' portions will be unlocked after one year, while the role of Resolv tokens is quite conventional, serving governance and rewards, as mentioned above, the staking rewards for USR and RLP are provided for this.
After reviewing the fundamentals and stability principles, we need to analyze whether this approach is reliable. Although it claims to be 1:1 collateralized, it is actually over-collateralized; it just shifts the over-collateralization burden to others, namely the RLP part.
However, from the perspective of RLP's returns and risks, I find it somewhat unreasonable. The profits calculated above suggest that RLP takes a fixed 30% + a basic 70% distributed proportionally. If calculated based on the above ratio (2.16/1.33), it means taking 19%, which is about 50% of the total profits, while bearing 100% of the risks.
Collapse Risk
Moreover, although Resolv's USR stablecoin reduces systemic risk through a Delta-Neutral strategy and RLP insurance mechanism, it is not 'flawless'. Below are several extreme scenarios that could lead to a collapse or decoupling of USR.
I. Extreme market volatility & failure of short hedging
Scenario:
In extreme market conditions (e.g., ETH or BTC suddenly dropping >50%), the protocol needs to quickly balance spot and futures positions.
If there is extreme volatility in the futures market and liquidity exhaustion, it may lead to the inability to hedge in a timely manner, resulting in the Delta-Neutral strategy failing.
Consequences:
If hedging fails → leads to large-scale unrealized losses → if losses exceed RLP's capacity, full redemption of USR cannot be guaranteed.
II. RLP liquidity exhaustion
Scenario:
If continuous losses occur (such as reverse futures funding fees, large-scale liquidations, black swan events), RLP bears all losses.
If there isn't enough new capital injected into RLP and the old LPs are exiting en masse, RLP's assets will be quickly exhausted.
Consequences:
No insurance pool to back it up → Protocol unable to ensure USR 1:1 redemption → leads to decoupling or loss of confidence.
III. Long-term yield < User Expectations
Scenario:
The actual base yield generated by the protocol + funding yield is far lower than user expectations;
At the same time, more attractive stablecoin alternatives have emerged in the market (such as Ethena's sUSDe).
Consequences:
Large outflows from stUSR and RLP holders;
USR faces redemption difficulties due to liquidity exhaustion, which may trigger sell-offs and break the peg.
