Fluid Growth Vision & Community Buyback Discussion

[DMH]

Introduction

Fluid Protocol has crossed $3 billion in market size, securing its position as the 4th largest money market by active loans and the 2nd largest DEX on Ethereum in volumes and fees. With an annualized revenue run rate surpassing $10 million based on recent performance, Fluid has already established itself among the top tier of DeFi protocols.

Over the past ~15 months, Fluid has achieved substantial results:

• Fluid Lending ranks among the top 4 lending markets on Ethereum by active loans:

• Fluid DEX is currently the second largest by trading volume and fees on Ethereum:

These achievements mark more than just success to date - they are the base from which we accelerate toward our next milestones: $10 billion in market size and $30 million in annualized revenue over the coming six months. With multiple growth catalysts ahead, we see a clear path to scaling further, faster, and across more markets than ever before.

---

Why $10B and $30M Matter

Reaching these targets will position Fluid as not only a leader in individual markets, but as a cross-chain DeFi platform that commands global attention. At $10B in market size and $30M in revenue, Fluid will have:

• The liquidity depth to power large-scale financial activity.

• A proven, diversified revenue base that supports sustainable growth.

• Greater ability to reinvest in technology, partnerships, and incentives.

• A stronger position to attract more institutional adoption and long-term capital inflows.

---

Foundation of Fluid’s Next Growth Phase

1. Distribution Expansion

Fluid is actively building a multi-pronged distribution strategy designed to put our technology into the hands of more users and protocols worldwide.

• Partnership-Driven Growth: Juplend serves as our pilot distribution program, combining Fluid’s advanced tech and operational expertise with Jupiter’s reach.

• Expanding Partner Network: We are in active discussions with other distribution partners who can onboard millions of users through native integrations.

• Multi-Chain Deployment: While growing core markets such as Ethereum, Arbitrum, and Base, we are preparing for native Fluid deployments on additional chains with high growth potential, expanding our presence and liquidity footprint.

---

2. Product Innovation and Growth Catalysts

Our product roadmap extends far beyond what has already been announced.

• Upcoming Launches: DEX Lite, Jupiter Lend, USD Lite vault, and DEX V2 will significantly enhance user experience, liquidity, and revenue.

• Future Products: Additional protocols built on top of Fluid will be announced later this year, each designed to attract new TVL and generate more DAO revenue. Things already in the ideation phase:

  • Permissionless protocol (allowing risk curators to deploy vaults & DEXes using the most advanced liquidation engine).
  • Fixed rates protocol.
  • Perps protocol.
  • Sophisticated DEX LP vault strategies.

• Technology Leadership: Fluid’s architecture enables us to fully support user journeys end-to-end, making us the go-to DeFi infrastructure provider.

---

3. The $FLUID Token

The $FLUID token is central to our governance, community alignment, and long-term value creation strategy. As the protocol grows, so too will the role of the token in decision-making and value accrual. It is very important to know that Fluid protocol is fully governed by the token holders and has no material equity behind it. Fluid has scored near-perfect score in the recent Blockworks Token Transperancy report.

As the protocol continues to mature and 100% of $FLUID tokens have been vested, we are now opening a community discussion on introducing a token buyback program. Rather than imposing a single model, we are presenting multiple approaches for governance to consider.

Buyback Models for Discussion

Model 1: Dynamic Buyback Based on FDV (x * y = k)

In this model, the percentage of revenue allocated to buybacks depends on the fully diluted value (FDV) of the FLUID token. If the FDV is below $0.5 billion, 100% of revenue goes to buybacks. As the FDV increases, the percentage allocated to buybacks decreases according to the x * y = k curve.

• Pros: This approach ensures more aggressive buybacks when the token is undervalued, potentially supporting the price during weaker market conditions.

• Cons: It could create a perceived price ceiling, where the community might think the team doesn’t expect the token to go above certain valuations, possibly influencing market perception.

Model 2: 30-Day TWAP Buyback

This model uses the 30-day Time-Weighted Average Price (TWAP) of the token. If the current price is below the 30-day TWAP, 100% of the revenue is used for buybacks. If the current price is above the 30-day TWAP, no buybacks occur.

• Pros: This method builds treasury reserves during bullish periods and deploys buybacks primarily in bearish conditions, aiming to support the token price when it’s under pressure.

• Cons: It may lead to buybacks at relatively high valuations if the token has recently dipped from a peak, and it might miss opportunities to buy during gradual uptrends.

Model 3: Hybrid Approach

The hybrid model combines elements of both approaches. In bull markets, the protocol minimizes buybacks, preserving revenue. In bear markets, it applies the x * y = k model to scale buybacks based on FDV, ensuring that when the token is severely undervalued, more aggressive buybacks occur.

• Pros: Combines the strengths of both models, adapting to different market conditions and providing a balanced approach.

The team inclines towards a hybrid approach as it maintains a healthy balance between growing the treasury and purchasing the token when it is the most undervalued.

We also encourage discussion of the no-buyback option, preserving maximum revenue for reinvestment into growth

1. Preserving Liquid Reserves and Reinvesting in Growth:
   In traditional business models, companies often reinvest profits to fuel further growth before considering any form of buybacks. In the Web3 space, while tokens can be used as incentives, maintaining a strong cash reserve allows for more aggressive investment into new protocols, partnerships, and user acquisition. By not spending revenue on buybacks, Fluid can potentially scale faster, attract more users, and achieve the next stage of growth more rapidly.

2. Resilience During Bear Markets:
   Bear markets can be challenging for any protocol. If most of the revenue has been used for buybacks, the protocol may find itself with limited cash reserves when it needs them most. Having a robust treasury means the protocol can continue innovating and even expanding during downturns, turning challenges into opportunities. It also reduces the risk of having to cut back on incentives or development due to a lack of funds.

3. Long-Term Vision Over Short-Term Price Support:
   While buybacks can be a way to signal alignment with token holders, it’s important to recognize that small-scale buybacks may not drastically increase the token price on their own. The real driver of long-term token value is the protocol’s future potential and growth trajectory. By focusing on reinvestment, the protocol can work toward becoming a major DeFi player with a robust suite of services, ultimately attracting investors who are looking at the protocol’s multi-year growth prospects rather than short-term price moves.

Should the community vote for a specific option following the initial discussion period, buybacks will start being implemented come October 1st. The buyback initiative, if approved by the community, will be assessed after a 6-month period to evaluate its effectiveness and impact on Fluid protocol growth.

---

4. Revenue Flywheel

Our growth model is designed to create a self-reinforcing loop:

Revenue Growth → Product Development & Incentives → Increased TVL → More Revenue.

• DAO Treasury Strength: A healthy treasury ensures the DAO can finance security partners, growth initiatives, and community programs without external funding pressure.

• Strategic Incentives: Targeted incentive programs can rapidly increase TVL and deepen liquidity in strategic markets.

• Sustainable Scaling: Revenue growth fuels expansion across new products, partnerships, and ecosystems, accelerating progress toward $10B and beyond.

The Fluid team itself maintains a healthy balance of cash and doesn’t need to draw from the DAO treasury for at least until the end of the year to pay salaries and operational costs. However, as Fluid’s governance matures and the protocol scales across multiple chains with robust, sustainable revenue, the coming phase presents a strategic opportunity to onboard specialized third-party service providers. This includes security partners to enhance both code integrity and economic safeguards, as well as growth-focused providers to position Fluid for stronger institutional adoption. These service providers will have to be financed by the DAO.

---

Conclusion

This proposal is intended to foster a transparent, data-driven discussion on the most effective approach to FLUID token buybacks at this pivotal stage of the protocol’s growth. By presenting multiple models, including the possibility of no buyback, we aim to give the community the opportunity to weigh the trade-offs, align on strategic priorities, and choose a path that best supports both short-term performance and long-term value creation.

With ambitious targets ahead of $10 billion in market size and $30 million in annualized revenue within the next six months, our collective decision will shape not just immediate market dynamics, but also Fluid’s positioning as a leading DeFi protocol in the years to come. We encourage all community members to participate actively, share their perspectives, and help refine a strategy that maximizes the benefits for all stakeholders.

[dknugo]

I propose Model 4: Fixed % Buyback. Don’t overcomplicate - the difference between proposed models is actually negligible because it’s not clear how repurchased FLUID tokens will be used.
Just copy best practices (Hyperliquid) and decide on current share between DAO allocation & buybacks. This ratio can be changed later as well as the rules for distribution of repurchased tokens.

[Smurfy]

I would like to propose that the fourth option, which was provided rather casually, be taken up more seriously by the community and Fluid’s team as well.

By posting this proposal along with the three outlined models by which buybacks may be implemented, Fluid has honoured the agreement to enable buybacks, subject to a DAO vote, after $10M in accumulated revenue has been accrued.

However, too fast in crypto are decisions made to try to benefit token holders rather than aggressively grow the underlying protocol.

For this reason, no buybacks for the foreseeable future (let’s bookmark Q2 2026) is likely the best path forward for Fluid.

[defiqwerty]

I believe we should be more focused on growth and capturing larger market share rather than prioritizing token buybacks at this stage. Buybacks might create some short-term excitement, but they risk distracting us from the larger game.

Fluid is a protocol that is already among the most efficient in the market. If we combine that efficiency with even larger incentives and aggressive expansion, it will naturally lead to higher revenue and help us scale much faster. This approach not only strengthens our position but also builds long-term value for the $FLUID token in a more sustainable way.

That said, we don’t have to completely rule out buybacks. They can still make sense under very specific conditions. For example, if the token becomes severely undervalued — say when FDV drops near or below $0.5 billion — we could allocate around 60–70% of revenue toward buybacks to express confidence and help stabilize the market. The remaining funds should continue to be directed toward growth, development, and ecosystem expansion.

A good real-world parallel here is Google. In its early years, they didn’t spend heavily on buybacks. Instead, they reinvested aggressively into products like Android, YouTube, and global infrastructure. That strategy of choosing growth over short-term returns is what turned them into one of the most valuable companies in the world today. Buybacks only came much later — after dominance was secured.

Similarly, Fluid is at the stage where bold reinvestment and scale will matter far more than token buybacks. If we focus on becoming the largest, most widely used DeFi protocol — $100B+ market size, cross-chain dominance, diversified products — the long-term token value will far exceed any short-term pump from buybacks.

In short: let’s keep our attention on growth first, while still leaving room for selective buybacks when the token is truly undervalued. That way, we get the best of both worlds — resilience, long-term positioning, and occasional support when it matters most.

[BananaOfMercy]

I’m in favor of a buyback (option 3) to help establish a “floor” for $FLUID and kickstart the flywheel effect. Having that baseline confidence can attract more liquidity and keep momentum strong as the protocol scales.

My main question would be, who decides what a bear/bull market is?

[DMH]

Hybrid approach will follow xyk curve and twap parameters, no one will need to decide what cycle of the market it is

[BananaOfMercy]

Would also propose to make a page e.g. buybacks.fluid.io (similar to revenue.instadapp.io)

(depending on the chosen model) Where we are on the (x * y = k) curve, where we are on the 30d TWAP,
Graph of daily buybacks, total buybacks, annualized backbacks, …

[colo]

I support this. The rules don’t need to be complicated—simple and direct is more effective. A fixed 70% buyback makes the narrative easier to spread.

[letsgetonchain]

@DMH

Revenue Flywheel

my two cents is that i would probably allocate 50% of rev to simple twap buy backs and 50% to rev fly wheel and reevaluate in 6 months. Buy backs will directly contribute to rev flywheel since a higher fluid price leads to higher APY incentives given a fixed FLUID incentive supply.

Regarding Fluids growth vision i think “Distribution expansion” is extremely important for growth. JupLend is a great one but its a separate instance on another chain segregating liquidity. Are there any distribution plans to have partners integrate Fluid the way Coinbase did with Morpho for example?

[DMH]

Yes, we will surely prepare a dedicated page for buybacks. In fact, we are already working on a $fluid info page and it will also have buybacks info included in the future.

[Crypto-newbie]

support this too . Because this could allow certain % goes back to token , and certain % for growth , and it is simple too

[thisisalpha]

I was under the impression that the buyback contracts were already implemented and that we were just waiting to reach the 10M threshold before deploying it. Also, in the initial discussions the FDV trigger for starting buybacks was set at below $1B, not $0.5B. Personally, I think that original proposal made more sense.

Regarding the model, I agree with @dknugo: don’t overcomplicate it. Simplicity is key here. The critical part is the % split between growth and buybacks, not adding more moving parts.

Finally, I still see $FLUID as a third-tier token, especially given that it doesn’t even have perpetual markets yet. We can’t ignore the reality that most of crypto is driven by speculation, and without perps the level of speculative activity is orders of magnitude lower. A successful token buyback could help $FLUID get listed on perpetuals, which in turn would improve liquidity.

[artofkot]

On behalf of cyber•Fund, here are our thoughts on the current proposal:

1. High-level considerations

A clearer description of of the pros & cons of the buyback program is missing. Making these more explicit (albeit the actual factors are quite subjective) will help make decisions and evaluate the program going forward. We invite the Fluid team to expand on this topic, but here are the two key points.

1a. Buyback program objective

Beyond the apparent factor of affecting short-term price to benefit token holders, strategically the buyback program:

• Increases confidence of existing token holders
• Attracts new investors
• Increases the overall support of the protocol:
  • Aligns the broader crypto community towards Fluid
  • Expands Fluid’s distribution power

1b. Opportunity cost

The main downside of the buyback program is that revenue can be potentially spent towards Fluid’s growth directly.

2. Lower-level considerations

2a. Buyback program assessment factors

We encourage a more thorough analysis of the buyback models, assessing the following factors:

• Effectiveness towards the objective
• Simplicity:
  • Too many discretionary decisions may eat into team’s time
  • Complex execution may invite inefficiencies
• Risks. In particular, in the context of adversarial traders potentially manipulating the price
• Sustainability & robustness
• Pros & cons of “burning” vs “not burning” the bought-back tokens

2b. Our views on the three buyback models

Model 1. While we like the structure of the model, we think that FDV level alone cannot be used to gauge whether FLUID is over- or under-valued. For example, if FDV is $0.5B but the revenue is low (due to bear market or some other reason), buying back token does not make sense since it is overvalued.

Instead, we suggest to use the FDV/annualized-revenue multiple as the key fundamental signal. In other words, a hypothetical program could use 100% of revenues for buybacks if FDV/ann-rev < 50, and then above the 50 level there could be tapering according to xy=k formula. The buyback could also potentially stop up once the multiple surpasses certain level and is considered “overvalued”.

To sum up, here are the key parameters of the model:

• How the annualized revenue is calculated
• The FDV/ann-rev level under which 100% of buybacks occur
• The FDV/ann-rev level above which 0% of buybacks occur (could be ∞)
• The exact tapering function (in xy=k, what is x, y & k?)

Model 2. This model introduces a major “strategy” risk into the buyback program. It is highly unclear how well this will work, especially in the range market: in our view, this is not robust enough & does not clearly serve the goal of the buyback program. In addition, conditioning buybacks on 30-day average seems vulnerable towards price manipulations.

Model 3. Same problems as with model 2. Also too complex, and may potentially require too many discretionary decisions.

3. Conclusion: our view

3a. More detailed framework & assessment is warranted

We encourage to lay out clear objectives, advantages & disadvantage of the buyback program

3b. The FDV/ann-rev buyback program for 6 months makes sense

Turning on [FDV/ann-rev]-guided buybacks for 6 months and then reassessing makes sense to us. This strikes the balance of simplicity, effectiveness & robustness.

• We think that “not burning” the bought-back tokens mitigates the opportunity cost disadvantage — the tokens can later be used as incentives. While this may seem as an unnecessary withdrawal-and-deployment of tokens from & into the market, the program facilitates movement of tokens from weak hands to aligned partners – this makes sense. Important to also remember that this is optional: it’s not a given that bought-back tokens will be used as incentives.

  That said, the ultimate assessment of the 1b. Opportunity cost can be made only by the team, since an analysis of the budget & detailed growth strategy is needed here.

• Fluid is in active growth phase, and as such continuous reassessments of the buyback program are needed. This is where the 3a. Framework will help a lot, and this is why reassessing in 6 months is a good idea.

• We want to caveat that long-term not burning tokens may not make too much sense, and once Fluid exits its growth phase (maybe far into the future), burning the bought back tokens becomes more sensible than not burning.

• A lot will depend on the key parameters of the model:

  • Model: we recommend Model 1 with [FDV/ann-rev] instead of [FDV] signal. Buying back in undervalued territory and not buying back in overvalued territory makes sense to us – hence we suggest to be guided by the [FDV/ann-rev] multiple.
  • Parameters: a market study is needed to determine what are the healthy, undervalued & overvalued levels of [FDV/ann-rev] for DeFi protocols. This in particular also involves pinning down the definition of annualized revenue.
  • Tapering: we suggest to pin down the exact tapering function, and at least rough rationale behind it

[DMH]

Thank you @artofkot and cyber•Fund, for your thoughtful and detailed feedback. We really appreciate the structured perspective and the specific refinements you propose. A few reflections from the Fluid team’s side:

1. On Objectives & Trade-offs
We agree that a clearer articulation of the objectives and opportunity costs is important. While short-term price stabilization is one visible effect, the deeper aim is confidence-building, broadening token distribution, and reinforcing protocol alignment. At the same time, we acknowledge the trade-off with direct growth investments, which is why we view the buyback program as something to reassess periodically rather than lock in indefinitely.

2. On Framework & Assessment
Your call for a framework resonates strongly with us. We decided to gather initial community feedback on the buyback model prior to making a full assessment breakdown, which will take a lot of team resources if conducted for every possible model. The analysis for the chosen model will cover:

• effectiveness in meeting objectives,
• operational simplicity,
• robustness to manipulation,
• sustainability over time.

We agree that this framework should be used both for initial parameter setting and for reassessment after a defined period (e.g., 6 months).

3. On Models

• Model 1 refinement: We acknowledge the critique that FDV alone might be too blunt. The FDV/annualized-revenue multiple might be a stronger fundamental signal, but at the same time it also may potentially require too many discretionary decisions because, in this case, we also need to decide which FDV / annualized revenue is considered under/overvalued. Potentially, we can look at other protocols’ metrics as a reference, but it is also too complicated to make a proper peer-to-peer comparison against other DeFi protocols to parameterize thresholds for 100% → tapering → 0% buybacks around this metric. For example, Uniswap has ~$10B FDV with $0 revenue generated since inception, while some other protocols might have very high revenue and low FDV because the growth is fully subsidized by the token emissions. In the end, every buyback model carries different trade-offs.
• Model 2 & 3: We share your concerns about complexity, discretionary decision-making, and susceptibility to manipulation, but I would argue that every model carries similar risks. There can be less complex models (which is, in general, not a problem since the execution will be automated rather than manual). At this stage, we want to gather as much feedback as possible to find out the best solution that ensures sustainability and holders alignment. The implementation and execution of the chosen strategy shall not be a problem in the future and will be carried out in the best manner.

4. On Burning vs Non-Burning
We see merit in the “not burning” approach during Fluid’s growth phase, as it preserves flexibility for future incentive design. That said, we recognize that long-term alignment may tilt toward burning once growth matures. We will make this a part of the 6-month reassessment.

5. Next Steps

• Gather more feedback on the buyback models.
• Conduct a market study on healthy FDV/annualized-revenue multiples for DeFi protocols (and define “annualized revenue” transparently) prior to proceeding with this model if it gets supported by the community.
• Define an explicit reassessment criteria.

---

In short: we are aligned on exploring a simplified, fundamentals-driven model (e.g., guided by FDV/ann-rev), and propose a structured reassessment framework.

Thanks again for helping sharpen the discussion and model design. We would also encourage you to share your insights on what the healthy, undervalued & overvalued levels of [FDV/ann-rev] for DeFi protocols are.

[litocoen]

ok so here’s my take. while I used to firmly be in the anti-buyback ‘businesses should reinvest into growth’ camp - i think there’s two caveats that apply here:

1. signaling: like DMH mentioned in his post buybacks in crypto are an investment into your community. unfortunately, in crypto users have lost trust in teams after years of bad precedents where teams siphoned profits away from tokenholders into their centralized lab entities or outright rugged them. By choosing to implement an algorithmic buyback program, the Fluid protocol makes it unambiguous that the token is intrinsicially linked to the protocol and that any future growth will directly benefit tokenholders. Think about all the leftcurves in your comments on Twitter who ask “muH bUt WhaT aBt tOkEn UtIliTy”? You show them the buyback program that’s in place and enjoy the silence.

2. I think “reinvesting in growth” is becoming less and less bottlenecked by capital. AI makes labor more productive and smart contracts reduce the operational overhead of running a financial services business by an order of magnitude. That’s why Ethena, Hyperliquid and Fluid all have headcounts < 20. Think about it: where does Fluid’s growth come from? From the ingenuinity and hard work of Samyak, DMH and the small and nimble team around them! Not some fancy billboard campaigns on Times Square, lavish parties at crypto conferences, $20m bribes to get integrated in some fintech app or massive KOL campaigns. I think the DAO should absolutely build reserves to have the ability to retain the Fluid labs team for years to come but I don’t think there’s a need for >$100m warchests either given the leanness of the team.

I believe Option 3 is therefore the best option, sending the right signal to the market while leaving the bulk of drypowder for token buybacks for bear market times.

[DMH]

Hi @litocoen , thank you for your comment

@litocoen

users have lost trust in teams after years of bad precedents where teams siphoned profits away from tokenholders into their centralized lab entities or outright rugged them.

On Fluid, all revenue goes to the treasury, so even without the buybacks, token holders are in full control of the revenue generated.

@litocoen

and enjoy the silence.

There will always be another argument

@litocoen

I think “reinvesting in growth” is becoming less and less bottlenecked by capital. AI makes labor more productive and smart contracts reduce the operational overhead of running a financial services business by an order of magnitude.

Reinvestment is needed to acquire more team members or even teams, acquire new protocols, make partnerships, etc. It is already common knowledge that some other protocols paid 8 figures for exclusive partnerships with centralized parties, which brought them billions in TVL. Having cash to participate in these deals can significantly help Fluid to grow.

@litocoen

I think the DAO should absolutely build reserves to have the ability to retain the Fluid labs team for years to come but I don’t think there’s a need for >$100m warchests either given the leanness of the team.

Thank you for your kind words. Indeed, we would love to onboard service providers, including economical and technical risk managers, to Fluid to enhance security, which has some costs and can not be paid in Fluid tokens.

[defiqwerty]

FDV/ann-rev model makes far more sense than just FDV.

[DMH]

Probably, FDV/fees can be a more precise metric as there are not many protocols in DeFi that have any sort of revenue.

[bmpalatiello]

I echo @artofkot’s sentiment above. I’m more interested in specific implementations. I won’t comment on whether buybacks are the better policy than investing in growth.

I encourage the use of FDV/annualized revenue (or something similar) as the valuation metric. Though, presumably, as in most other markets, valuations are not constant and heterogeneous so the system should be dynamic. For example, the absolute simplest version of this is we can take a short-term moving average (to filter short-term noise) of the valuation metric and compare it to a longer term average. There’s a bunch of ways to do this but ideally the buyback percentage should be a smooth function of the valuation metric. For example, a simple scalar between 0 and 1 which represents what percentage of the revenue should be used for buybacks:

max(0, 1-(MA_(short))/(MA_{long)))

The simplest way to calculate revenue over the short and long moving averages would be to annualize the sum of revenue (USD) for those periods. For example, if MA_(short) is 1 month and MA_(long) is 1 year then we would multiply the sum of 1 months revenue and multiply by 12 for the former, and the latter would just be the sum of revenue over the past year. The numerator for the former would be the average FDV over the last 30 days, and 365 days for the latter. Note, when I say “revenue” I mean the amount of fees the protocol generates for itself, not its users.

Now, revenue in excess of an appropriate amount for the treasury should be what is used for buybacks. For example, if we assume we need $X to keep the protocol running smoothly, then only until the treasury reaches $X should the excess revenue be used for buybacks. This requires an assessment of the cost to keep the lights and incentives on.

This (again simplest possible) approach avoids issues with each of the original models presented (1, 2, and 3).

[miscao]

The best approach is a hybrid that incorporates the strongest ideas from the discussion.

1. Adopt the FDV/Revenue Model: For valuing the FLUID token, the DAO should use the FDV/Annualized Revenue multiple. It is the most robust, fundamentals-driven method discussed.
2. Allocate a Fixed Revenue Share: To balance the growth vs. buyback debate, the DAO could start with a simple split. For example, allocate 50% of protocol revenue to the main treasury for growth and operations, and 50% to a dedicated “Buyback Fund.”
3. Deploy Fund Based on Valuation: The capital in the Buyback Fund should then be deployed according to the FDV/Revenue model. If the token is deemed “overvalued” by the model, the funds simply accumulate, creating a war chest for when the token becomes fundamentally undervalued again.

This balanced strategy values the token intelligently, signals commitment to token holders, and simultaneously ensures that the protocol retains significant capital to aggressively pursue its growth targets of $10 billion in market size and beyond.