In-depth Interpretation of TradeOFF: A Community and AI-Driven Decentralized Asset Management Protocol

Market Status of Decentralized Asset Management Track

So far, no decentralized asset management protocol has achieved a near-monopoly position in the crypto market, and the liquidity participating through on-chain asset management channels accounts for less than 1% compared to the overall DeFi liquidity. The primary reason is that the pioneering asset management protocols seem unclear about why people would use them and what kind of individuals need them. They appear to be more focused on implementing asset management logic on-chain rather than contemplating the significance of asset management facilities on blockchain and decentralization.

From the retrospective statement of the founder of the now-defunct Babylon Finance protocol, several truths emerge. He stated, "Crypto users have an extremely short time preference and high-risk tolerance. Babylon protocol provides fund managers and investors with investment opportunities with different risk profiles but always focused on medium to long-term investments." Clearly, he expressed doubts about whether they could tap into their users from the existing crypto market.

The growth of existing crypto market users has not maintained rapid growth over the past few years until the listing of ETFs; however, the investors through ETFs are not traditional crypto market investors in the conventional sense, as traditional crypto users are more inclined to seek speculation. We once conducted a channel survey of around 1,000 random users from different regions and periods entering the market, where over 50% openly stated that they sought an annualized return exceeding 70% in the crypto market. However, the actual performance of these users showed that, over the past three years, they achieved an average annualized return of less than 25% after entering the market, with the proportion of users experiencing negative growth reaching as high as 61%!

This set of data is quite interesting and demonstrates a significant difference from traditional financial markets. It is evident that, over the past three years, the average return rate of the crypto market far exceeds that of other large-scale financial markets, with an average annualized return close to 25%. However, the incongruity is that most users have incurred losses over the past three years.

Investors are confident in this market, but most seem not to have grasped the correct investment methods.

In both traditional and emerging financial markets, more professional investors always have the advantage, stemming from a comprehensive understanding of the market, professional knowledge, trading experience, and capital volume.

In traditional financial markets, the proportion of funds participating in large-scale financial market activities through compliant institutions like funds and trusts generally exceeds 50%. In contrast, centralized crypto asset management institutions often face failures, from Three Arrows Capital to FTX, where operational opacity, lack of regulation, and inadequate risk control capabilities are the main culprits. The result is that users lose confidence in participating in asset management plans in a nascent market, which is also one of the primary reasons for the low proportion of asset management funds entering the crypto market.

Does decentralized asset management have the opportunity to raise the banner of crypto market asset management? Let's take a look at the currently active projects in this track.

The now-defunct Babylon Finance is a representative of active management in the decentralized asset management track and is a key focus of this article. Currently, Enzyme and TradeOFF are the two most noteworthy projects in this track.

To avoid confusion, let's clarify the subfields of this track.

In addition to the active management track, decentralized asset management protocols also include one-stop asset management tools (such as Debank, Zerion, Zapper, dHedge), non-custodial strategy tool deployment (i.e., passive management, such as Nova Finance, Factor DAO), and protocols similar to ETFs that involve single-strategy asset portfolios, which are no longer strictly asset management protocol infrastructure and are not within the scope of this article.

First, we need to recognize the advantages of decentralized asset management protocols:

Low startup costs --- In traditional finance, the high legal, registration, and notarization costs associated with creating a fund can range from $10,000 to over $200,000. In contrast, the cost of on-chain funds, led by Ethereum, is less than $100, and on high-throughput L1 chains, costs can be reduced to a few dollars.
Fast startup speed --- The fund creation process in traditional finance may take months, while decentralized alternatives can shorten this process to a few minutes.
No user entry barriers --- Due to settlement methods and costs, traditional financial fund participation often has certain investment thresholds, while decentralized funds completely eliminate minimum investment limits for investors.
Can be non-custodial/trustless --- In blockchain-based funds, fund managers cannot hold or withdraw investors' funds; they can only use investors' funds to execute certain investment and trading operations.
Transparency --- Due to reliance on real contracts, external auditors, and non-real-time reporting, funds in traditional asset management may suffer from limited transparency. Blockchain technology provides a continuously updated and transparent ledger, allowing funds built on blockchain to be fully transparent, with all changes to their portfolios updated in real-time as they occur.
Composability --- Decentralized finance allows contracts to interrelate and modularize as "money Legos," making decentralized asset management easily integrate with other DeFi services for trading, reporting, leverage, insurance, swaps, and other functions.
Community culture --- The most easily overlooked yet crucial point is that the community-driven nature of the crypto market is more suited to decentralized asset management, especially active management, where trust between users and on-chain funds is often conveyed through community consensus, which has been a significant oversight in most past decentralized asset management protocols.

The future growth of the crypto market depends on how to transfer the market confidence of existing users to off-chain users and how the infrastructure can play a role in lowering barriers, enhancing trust, and uniting communities. In summary, considering that no true leader has emerged in the current asset management protocols, the entire decentralized asset management track holds enormous growth potential.

In-Depth Study of TradeOFF

DeFi has brought more combinatorial trading channels, and if various DeFi facilities can be reasonably utilized and combined, it can maximize the utilization of funds while quickly capturing investment opportunities through on-chain data analysis. The downside is that our crypto assets become highly fragmented, increasing management difficulty. Meanwhile, advanced users utilize a large number of DeFi applications for combinations, some requiring lending, some needing collateral, some needing conversion, and various different contract trading interactions. These operations are not simple, making it challenging for the vast majority of users, especially new users with low familiarity with on-chain operations, to skillfully use these tools to help achieve wealth growth.

Additionally, the probability of security issues arising from on-chain asset operations is statistically hundreds of times higher than centralized trading behaviors, with many issues stemming from user errors and many products being poorly designed, even leading to vulnerabilities and failures.

TradeOFF, the world's first community and AI-driven decentralized asset management protocol, is filled with various innovations and rigorous concepts, aiming to break through decentralized asset management and create the largest community asset management platform globally. The most community-friendly DeFi protocol, on-chain open-ended funds, AMM settlement methods, fully community governance, AI-driven risk control, and revolutionary effective liquidity mining… a new generation of asset management protocols that integrates multiple shining elements will be deeply analyzed in this article.

Constructing a New Paradigm for DeFi Asset Management Protocols

The ultimate goal of decentralized asset management protocols is to allow users to manage their assets across different public chains through a single entry point, opening up a new, decentralized, and sufficiently flexible way to connect to DeFi products in the market. At the same time, lowering the entry barriers and potential risks to fund security is a problem that asset management protocols must solve.

Product Overview

TradeOFF is about to launch the internal testing of its V1 version, allowing users to participate in on-chain open-ended fund management plans with extremely low entry barriers.

Through node public offerings or by participating in later staking platform tokens, fund managers can build their asset management plans on it and manage tiered capital pools for investors. Investors can choose trusted nodes for non-custodial asset trading authorization. TradeOFF will deploy across multiple chains that support EVM and plans to support thousands of assets for investment in the future, combining hundreds of DeFi facilities, allowing fund managers to conduct permissioned trading of tiered capital pools through platform risk control governance access and rules.

Unlike traditional asset management, TradeOFF adopts a non-custodial approach, where asset management nodes cannot withdraw user-delegated assets but can only use the investors' capital pools for specific permitted operations, which are constrained by the entire community governance risk control system.

In contrast to Enzyme, which integrates numerous DeFi facilities to open investment channels for fund managers, TradeOFF places greater emphasis on providing tiered risk control strategies when establishing asset management plans. It introduces mechanisms commonly used in traditional finance, such as drawdown indicators, position pools, margin pools, and whitelisting permissions, to retain diverse investment strategies for different funds while ensuring that users fully understand the risks associated with their delegated asset management nodes under conditions of complete information symmetry.

Industry-Wide DeFi Aggregation

In addition to integrating protocols like Uniswap V3, Pancake, Compound, Aave, and Lido, TradeOFF has also integrated emerging short-term options DeFi platforms like SOFA and JasperVault, as well as distinctive spot trading strategy DeFi tools like Martingale. This carefully selected combination prioritizes strategies that allow different asset management nodes to leverage their trading strengths to meet the diverse needs of asset management trading, thus selecting top-tier, socially engaging, and high-growth modules from various DeFi Lego blocks for integration.

Among them, Martingale is a DeFi incubated by TradeOFF Labs, where the DApp operated by Martingale is based on gambling and traditional financial spot investment strategies, allowing community members to collaborate through crowdfunding and mutual assistance to achieve win-win outcomes in final spot investments.

Open-Ended Fund-like Structure

Although there are many differences in details, overall, each asset management plan product operates more like an open-ended fund.

Open-end Funds, also known as mutual funds, refer to funds where the total scale of fund units or shares is not fixed at the time of establishment. TradeOFF investors can participate in capital delegation at any time and obtain additional fund units, or they can sell their fund shares back to the fund for cash, which will correspondingly reduce the fund's assets and scale.

Since traditional funds settle once a day, TradeOFF, as a DeFi asset manager, meets the demand for real-time settlement. Because different DeFi combinations have different settlement cycles, how can we meet users' needs for entry and exit and real-time settlement?

TradeOFF applies a slippage mechanism in the subfield of asset management protocols, allowing slippage that occurs when users initiate a redemption and the actual redemption to trigger a real trading redemption only within a controllable range set by the user.

Support for Tiered Asset Management

In the V1 version, the funds delegated by users will automatically be divided into two-tier capital pools: a principal pool and a profit pool. Asset management nodes will be subject to different risk control constraints when actively managing trades in different capital pools, further ensuring the safety of users' principal.

Asset management nodes know what operations they can perform with the principal pool and profit pool, allowing for more reasonable allocation of users' assets. However, in the V1 version, non-professional users do not need to be aware of this automatic tiering system, thus reducing users' understanding costs; users only need to care about their returns.

The tiering system is the main execution mechanism of the risk control strategy in the TradeOFF asset management protocol, with different risk control mechanism templates corresponding to different levels of capital pools, thereby completely isolating risk control for different capital pools. TradeOFF will allow asset management nodes and users to support more complex tiering systems in the upcoming professional version entrance, further refining the risk control strategy configuration of different asset management plans.

Position Pool Mechanism

In the V1 version, the position pool is a crucial parameter for TradeOFF's asset management nodes, serving as a risk control aid and maintaining information symmetry with users.

The position pool ratio applies to different tiered capital pools managed by each node. For example, if the position pool ratio is set to 10%, this pool requires at least 10% of the funds to remain unutilized. Excluding funds in the states of pending redemption and unsettled trades, the remaining available funds must retain more than 10% of the total pool's funds as unusable, while the other portion can continue to participate in trading.

When the amount a user initiates for redemption is less than or equal to the position pool funds, they can redeem immediately after the pending redemption. However, since the operations of pending redemption and immediate redemption are two asynchronous transactions on the blockchain, there may be some slippage during the actual redemption. When the actual slippage is within the user's acceptable range, the redemption operation will take effect and be executed.

In fact, what happens when a user initiates a pending redemption is that the amount pending redemption will be stripped from the position pool calculation ratio. Therefore, when the remaining position pool is insufficient to meet the pre-set ratio, the position pool will need to be replenished. At this point, the asset management node cannot continue to call funds for trading from the existing pool until the assets they redeem or new user funds they delegate replenish the position pool.

This position pool, which absorbs the traditional bank reserve pool system, ensures that the delegated users of the asset management nodes can maximize their liquidity for entry and exit, and it is also one of the reinforced risk control measures.

Drawdown Rate Setting

The position pool maximally ensures the high liquidity of the asset management pool, while introducing drawdown rates and margin pools serves as a strong safeguard mechanism in the risk control strategy of asset management nodes, in addition to active trading restrictions.

The drawdown rate is the maximum loss ratio set by the asset management node manager, applying to each independent user's funds. When any user in the asset management pool experiences a loss ratio that reaches the drawdown rate based on their trading amount at the time of investment, that user can initiate a forced liquidation of their asset management share.

Under normal circumstances, users can redeem according to standard procedures. So what is the difference with forced liquidation initiated by reaching the drawdown rate? Even within an asset management pool, due to differences in LP net values at the time of purchase and varying entry timings, each user's return rate is different. Therefore, a forced liquidation initiated by a single user does not affect the funds of other users. During standard process redemption, the asset management node manager still has full discretion to redeem previous trades at what they deem appropriate, returning funds to the principal pool/profit pool.

If the manager fails to redeem in a timely manner, the following situations may occur:

As more and more users initiate unexecuted redemptions, the risk rating of that node will significantly decrease, making it difficult to obtain more delegated funds;
The asset manager may believe that the current moment is not the best time for redemption; they can continue to wait for a better opportunity or engage in other trading activities, leading to changes in returns without actually completing the redemption. Users can withdraw their redemption requests, but such actions may negatively impact asset management operations, and users will be deducted a certain amount of liquidity rewards (platform token TRO) corresponding to that liquidity delegation.
If redemption is not executed in a timely manner until the user's profit and loss ratio reaches the drawdown rate standard, they can initiate forced liquidation. The logic of forced liquidation is that the user can send a special transaction instruction to the contract, triggering the fund pool contract to withdraw the corresponding amount of funds from a third-party DeFi liquidity pool (sorted by yield from high to low) corresponding to the user's redemption amount. Once the redemption is completed and the funds return to the asset management plan contract pool, the user can complete the actual redemption.

Role of Margin

During the establishment and operation of the asset management plan, asset management nodes can avoid forced liquidation due to reaching the drawdown rate by supplementing margin at any time, thus gaining a larger time window to generate positive returns for users.

Margins are deposited into the asset management contract pool in the form of TRO. The role of the margin is that when a user's return rate falls below the drawdown rate, the margin pool will compensate based on the loss amount of all users whose principal pools fall below the drawdown rate, proportionally calculating compensation. If the calculation result brings the user's return rate above the drawdown rate, that user's delegation will no longer meet the drawdown rate condition.

After margin compensation calculations, if the user still meets the drawdown rate condition, then after forced liquidation, the margin will be paid according to the principal loss reaching the maximum drawdown rate standard, also proportionally to different users.

What benefits the asset management nodes is that, due to the TRO rewards generated by the nodes themselves and the liquidity reward sharing obtained from custodial assets, these two parts of TRO rewards will automatically enter the margin pool. Thus, in practice, the margin pool will be automatically replenished, and nodes also have the right to withdraw any excess portion from the margin after compensation calculations.

The margin system is not only a risk control measure that further ensures the safety of users' principal but also a balancing mechanism for the market in extreme situations. When the value of the platform token increases, the value of the margin pool will also grow, providing each asset management pool with a greater buffer to strive for better returns for users. Therefore, in a sense, TRO possesses a store of value capability, allowing the entire risk control mechanism to maintain sufficient elasticity under different market conditions.

Use of LP Tokens

When a user's assets enter the delegated pool of a node plan, there will be no immediate change in yield until the node manager allocates the funds to the wealth management pool, which will truly trigger changes in yield. Before that, users can redeem their assets at any time.

When the node manager allocates funds to the wealth management pool, users will receive a certain number of ERC1155 LP Tokens as proof of their assets. Each asset management plan's wealth management pool corresponds to a specific LP Token, and the price of each issued LP Token will be calculated based on the real-time net value of the asset pool according to the protocol's algorithm.

The price of the LP Token represents an estimated value of its corresponding asset pool's share in the current market, as the market is constantly fluctuating, and different DeFi pools may experience yield changes in each block. Moreover, even if the manager redeems immediately in the next moment, there may be slippage due to block discrepancies, causing the actual redeemed net value to differ from the algorithm-derived value. Therefore, this price primarily serves an evaluative purpose.

The introduction of LP Tokens allows users to better understand their yield changes and aids in the calculation process during settlement. More importantly, LP Tokens serve as a de facto asset certificate and are one of the greatest inventions of DeFi tools. Effectively utilizing the circulation of LP Tokens will further release users' liquidity and leverage greater effects.

TradeOFF's LP Tokens can be combined with many other DeFi facilities in the market, possessing functions such as trading, collateral, and lending. Interestingly, since the LP Tokens issued by different node asset management plans are not the same, the market's feedback on the value of different TradeOFF LP Tokens also serves as an objective evaluation of the different asset management plans corresponding to those LP Tokens, akin to how different stocks circulate in the same market, but the staking rates or interest costs accepted by the market can vary significantly.

Community-Driven

In addition to finding out where the true users come from, it is also essential to identify the correct organization and participation methods for users entering the decentralized asset management market.

Nodes as Community

In the TradeOFF protocol, different asset management plan contract pools are supported by different nodes, which serve as the sole entry point for users to participate in asset management plans. Most other asset management protocols focus more on allowing various funds on the platform to compete for crypto market user delegations based on yield performance or other means. However, in reality, users in the crypto market projects often come more from communities than from natural traffic conversion.

TradeOFF places greater emphasis on the broader crypto market user group, believing that the community plays a more active role in user participation. How users choose the nodes for asset delegation will largely depend on the community to which they belong, which TradeOFF considers the most crucial factor.

A community-based asset management node will have stronger trust bonds, motivation for governance participation, and driving force for better node operation through daily community activities. Syndicate, which also entered the asset management track through DAO tools, represents a case where the community existed before the DAO Treasure. However, they seem to excel more in managing the Treasure rather than effectively fulfilling the core function of asset management, which is to help users grow their wealth. Nonetheless, we still believe this is a good start.

People, Nodes, and Community

The structure of the community in the crypto industry, especially in asset management business communities, has never been flat. There are various transmission relationships of consensus and relevance of interests between communities, between people and communities, and between people. This is a relationship that any crypto project must clarify first.

In fact, everyone is a social node, simultaneously situated in 1-N communities. If we view each community as a node and replicate the above process, we will obtain a community network. Any person or community is a node in the network, and on each line connecting nodes, there is a segment describing the relationship and quantifiable interest relationship between the two (a more scientific and comprehensive explanation can be found in our white paper).

Mapping to the node-user organizational relationship in the TradeOFF protocol, TradeOFF will first support the distribution of interest relationships generated between nodes and the distribution of interest relationships between people and nodes. This is responsible for realizing the following functional details:

Nodes can authorize one or more capital pools to be delegated to other nodes for management;
Nodes can authorize one or more addresses to grant different management operation permissions;
Nodes can allocate different yields to different nodes or addresses;
Nodes can be re-elected by all delegated users through community governance to allocate management roles.

As for the relationships between people, TradeOFF will introduce an external plugin contract developed in-house, which is not coupled with the infrastructure, to achieve this, namely, a social relationship network contract that marks the associations between different addresses.

Ultimately, in the entire TradeOFF commercial architecture, nodes are the carriers of all communities, and the third-party contracts that nodes can connect to serve as input sources for external resources, allowing the entire TradeOFF user group to achieve wealth growth. Furthermore, to encourage the community-user dynamic to rapidly increase their liquidity, third-party DeFi contracts must reasonably utilize TradeOFF to describe these community nodes and social relationship contracts to incentivize based on the social relationships contained within, thereby striving for more liquidity. This is the commercial secret and cornerstone for TradeOFF's future explosive growth.

For example, if a community or individual is better at fundraising or leveraging their influence to gain traffic, they only need to complete that part of the work to enable their node to gain more liquidity delegation and then delegate the trading part they are not good at. At the same time, they can set up the distribution of interests, thus retaining their private traffic/liquidity pool while obtaining returns through collaboration with others or other communities.

TradeOFF aims to implement basic functions in a more abstract manner to meet the actual needs of social relationships in asset management business across different scenarios.

AI-Driven

The transparency and permissionless nature of on-chain data will greatly promote the development of AI, with Web3 enabling AI to achieve greater advancements in the coming years than in the past few decades.

TradeOFF will invest a considerable budget into the application of AI in asset management, focusing primarily on the following areas:

Personalized Smart Custody for Nodes

As an active open-ended fund asset management model, nodes may have a large number of trading activities to operate daily. By applying AI large model algorithms to simulate the quantitative operations of node managers, it can significantly reduce the workload of managers and increase fault tolerance. Although a large number of operations and data are transparently on-chain during node operation, TradeOFF also allows nodes to accumulate more data through off-chain simulations, then compress the calculation results using ZK technology to apply to personalized asset management AI custody robots on-chain. This approach enables the node AI custody robot to simulate the personalized asset management strategies of fund managers while ensuring the privacy of the original training sample data for asset management trading, thus preserving the trading secrets of fund managers from leaking.

AI Risk Control Strategy Optimization

The risk control strategies of the entire platform are decided by community governance. However, decentralized projects have developed community governance for many years, and statistical results show that in a Web3 project, the proportion of users who can genuinely participate in voting decisions for highly specialized decision items is quite low.

On one hand, determining who should receive greater decision-making weight is often resolved through economic game theory in 99% of projects. However, the outcome of economic game theory often leads to the concentration of power. TradeOFF applies AI algorithms to determine who should receive greater decision-making power, incorporating hundreds of factors such as yield performance, historical contributions to the platform, influence in social relationships, managed assets, and potential for malicious behavior into the large model calculations for assessing decision-making power for each address. This is an unprecedented innovation!

On the other hand, as a large asset management protocol-driven platform, countless open-ended funds operate on the platform. Even the most active and professional community governors find it challenging to keep track of every detail of dynamically changing risk control strategy optimizations in a timely manner.

AI will play a role in the risk control large model, aiming for the safety of users' principal and maximum yield. All risk control-related parameters across the platform will become governance projects. AI robots will proactively take over risk control warnings and a large amount of preliminary research calculations, replacing most community risk governance proposal initiators to initiate voting proposals, simplifying the governance work for natural community governors to multiple-choice questions.

AI Risk Control Pricing and Rating

In addition to introducing AI into the global risk control strategy governance, risk pricing is often a primary guarantee for fair trading in financial markets. At least in two aspects, TradeOFF, as an asset management protocol, must emphasize the significance of risk pricing and rating to balance the market for sustainable and fair development for both trading parties.

TradeOFF connects to numerous third-party DeFi through peer-to-peer access. Generally, very few third parties can objectively evaluate the positive and negative performance of different DeFi in the market for user transactions. However, asset management protocols are the most direct and frequent clients of these DeFi. Different asset management plans use these DeFi entirely based on their strategies, independently, ultimately forming a vast data set to quantitatively assess the yield and risk performance of various DeFi. TradeOFF will introduce AI large models into this evaluation system, not only to assess the risks of asset management operations but also to guide the platform's asset management nodes to use these DeFi tools more effectively and allocate users' assets reasonably.

Another pricing and rating aspect applies to establishing a reasonable evaluation system and optimizing pricing and parameters for various asset management nodes on the platform. The application of asset management node rating is relatively easy to understand, so we will not discuss it further here. Risk pricing currently mainly serves several aspects:

LP Pricing and Staking Rates:

LP Token pricing and staking rates are important evaluation criteria for different asset management nodes mentioned earlier. In different third-party DeFi, these are entirely determined by the market. However, TradeOFF's AI engine will also combine historical and cross-sectional asset management sample data in large model algorithms to provide reference pricing.

Slippage Assessment:

As mentioned earlier, when users initiate a redemption, there will be slippage between the net value of the LP Token and the actual redemption completion. Based on various factors and historical data samples, TradeOFF will predict this slippage using AI to allow users to complete actual redemptions within their acceptable range.

Token Economics

Token economics is an unavoidable soul element of every Web3 project, representing the vision of the project party and their understanding of their business model.

60% - Effective Liquidity Rewards

In TradeOFF's token composition, 60% is allocated as effective liquidity rewards for at least the next 20 years.

Effective liquidity proof, Proof of Liquidity Efficiency, is the core idea of TradeOFF's business model. First, let's look at how effective liquidity is calculated:

Effective liquidity rewards are given to all users who delegate assets to asset management plans. Unlike the liquidity rewards applied in most DeFi projects, TradeOFF believes that only assets that genuinely participate in trading constitute effective liquidity for a DeFi facility, distinguishing itself from many current projects that provide rewards merely through staking or even locking. It has been proven that, unlike the PoS mechanisms of Ethereum and others, staking in DeFi projects does not participate in consensus proof. Therefore, most liquidity entering due to rewards does not constitute commercial contribution value, or some projects may experience inflated valuations due to TVL growth, receiving premium returns from the market that exceed actual commercial value, resembling false GDP.

In the TradeOFF scenario, when users delegate assets to asset management plans, they do not immediately generate returns. Returns can only be obtained when managers allocate assets to the wealth management pool, as each LP's value changes will involve the user, sharing the entire wealth management pool's returns.

Simultaneously, the business logic of the TradeOFF V1 platform is to extract 1% from all users' positive returns as a fee, which will be used to repurchase TRO circulating in the market, thus maintaining the deflationary or inflationary level of TRO within an acceptable range and allowing early participants in the platform to receive shareholder returns.

Additionally, liquidity rewards obtained from asset delegation will incur a commission ranging from 3% to 10% based on the different nodes they are delegated to. This setting is designed to incentivize nodes to strive for more liquidity delegation shares.

20% - Node Asset Management Plan Rewards

20% of the tokens will be rewarded to asset management nodes over at least the next five years.

The business logic of TradeOFF determines the survival of the fittest among asset management plans on the platform. Non-competitive asset management plans will be eliminated, but nodes themselves serve as infrastructure, equivalent to limited shops or licenses, operating permits. Therefore, even if early nodes cease operations, they can rent out or delegate management rights flexibly through the platform and can set up even complex interest distribution methods for different roles defined in node management. Thus, all active online nodes will have their market shares, meaning this 20% reward does not depend on the liquidity delegated to the nodes.

After repeated calculations, the TradeOFF team believes that in five years, the entire decentralized asset management track will experience significant development. According to TradeOFF's market share, each node can achieve substantial profits from the delegated asset management dividend fees in five years, thus no longer providing additional output rewards. All 20% TRO rewards will be distributed within five years.

Author's aside: But what is the cost of the corresponding node for this portion of rewards? Currently, there is no specific information available. Based on project valuation calculations and yield assessments, I believe node plans represent a type of investment in the crypto financial market with enormous appreciation potential. If the cost is $20,000, it should still yield over ten times the return.

7% - Team Rewards

7% of the team and early contributors' shares will be unlocked within five years.

8% - For Financing and Early Supporters

8% will be used for resource exchanges with early supporters and private financing.

5% - Initial Liquidity Pool

This will be used for initial market liquidity provision, including margin allocation, community airdrops, and ecological incentives.

Conclusion

The TradeOFF decentralized asset management protocol is based on a long-term vision, stemming from a judgment of the commercial paradigm of the decentralized future DeFi market.

Decentralized asset management is the only missing piece of the DeFi puzzle and is the key to new liquidity entering the crypto market. In the future crypto market, the growth of decentralized asset management will outpace the entire market. Whether for institutions or individuals, I believe TradeOFF is worth the long-term layout.

ChainCatcher reminds readers to view blockchain rationally, enhance risk awareness, and be cautious of various virtual token issuances and speculations. All content on this site is solely market information or related party opinions, and does not constitute any form of investment advice. If you find sensitive information in the content, please click "Report", and we will handle it promptly.