Felix continues to offer the largest vaults on HyperEVM with over $95m in deposits across vaults and ~$35m in available borrow capacity currently Current vaults live: >HYPE Flagship >USDC Flagship >USDC Frontier >USDT0 Flagship >USDT0 Frontier >USDe Flagship As a reminder, Felix vaults are deployed on @Morpho and support both 1) HYPE borrowers for looping kHYPE, wstHYPE, and kHYPE PTs as well as 2) stablecoin borrows for traders looking to borrow against HYPE, kHYPE, wstHYPE, and UBTC to trade more on Hyperliquid Will be interesting to watch where HyperEVM goes from here and in what ways HL Labs determines to further integrate the EVM or leave it as more segmented from Core. For now, EVM still serves as the primary mode of collateral servicing for HL traders looking to borrow against HYPE, kHYPE, and other HL-native assets to trade via Felix and HyperLend. TBD how much native Portfolio Margin will affect this in the future (not that much so far) or if there are other primitives that can be net-new on the EVM and gain scale. So far only lending and liquid staking have seen any viability, and both still face platform risk. Only path is to create durable value that is net-new and can't be swept away More on the way

Some notes on sunsetting FLX HIP-3: First, will share that sunsetting HIP-3 changes nothing for Felix borrow/lend or Felix spot equities. Both will continue to see more upgrades in the weeks to come as our team narrows focus Our team began work on our HIP-3 offering in June of 2025 as the clear use case for Felix borrow/lend was borrow to trade; we viewed adding our own markets as a way to customize more of that user flow and capture more upside. We also saw HIP-3 as a way to launch perps for assets that had never had perp market before and set out for a novel way to do this Things obviously didn't play out in our favor over the months post-FLX launch, even though we were first to market with a few key markets, namely OIL, GOLD, and SILVER. These markets drove us solid fees during December and January and about 3bn in volume, but were eventually surpassed by TradeXYZ once they launched the same markets denominated in USDC A few takeaways I've pondered for why things didn't work out in our favor and what could have gone differently--curious to hear if others think otherwise too: 1. TradeXYZ went with USDC over USDH, which seems obvious to be the correct choice in hindsight. When we launched, we did not know growth mode was on the horizon, which made the cost benefits of USDH negligent and left USDH markets as a fragmentation issue as opposed to a new core asset HL users wanted to use as margin. USDH appears to have been a well-played pawn to get Circle/Coinbase to move on driving USDC yield back to HL, but we didn't see the board this way at the time 2. XYZ beat us to market by launching on the day HIP-3 went live and about a month before we went live. This allowed early brand traction to build + time to get ready to launch more markets sequentially 3. XYZ beat us on market listing numbers early-on and built a moat of market listings quickly, while being the sole USDC-based deployer. Probably a bit of a balance sheet advantage here to pay for tickers and get liquidity in those markets; we had to pick markets more carefully due to balance sheet constraints 4. XYZ had an early brand halo around a mystery airdrop, which led to heightened early usage, which helped build initial volume/OI/liquidity, which created a growth flywheel that we were unable to catch. They then leveraged this growth flywheel to keep doubling down with more markets, larger partnerships, etc 5. With the 4 points above, XYZ was able to dominate the HL-native / CT-native trader base on HIP-3. Our options then were 1) launch novel/more esoteric market types that other deployers wouldn't touch or 2) build distribution in a net-new market. 1 is not that interesting to me since, as we saw with SILVER and OIL, as soon as a market gets traction, the top deployer can likely copy it. And 2 is something we haven't accomplished yet; it's an area we are determining how we want to approach as a company. When we accomplish 2, we may return as a deployer, but maintaining the deployment in the meantime is an unnecessary cost and not driving unique value, especially with the USDH sunset I'm sure there are other factors too that I haven't unpacked yet, but those are the main set I see Thanks again to all the HL traders who gave feedback over the build out of FLX and post-launch. Hopefully we can continue to serve you with your debt and yield needs via Felix borrow/lend. Feel free to ping me any time with thoughts, questions, or needs

Seems many DeFi participants (both retail and institutional) are unsure how to assess lending protocol risk when looking for yield onchain and selecting among available protocols. This creates unnecessary panic (granted times of needed panic certainly still exist in DeFi). But to help avoid some of the unnecessary panic scenarios, here is a brief breakdown of a typical 4 step risk assessment most sophisticated DeFi lenders use today, with @felixprotocol Vanilla as an example: Let's assume a panic is breaking out across DeFi, and you want to know whether your funds are safe now + will be safe over the days to come. Some steps: 1- Ensure this isn't a @Morpho protocol exploit as Felix Vanilla is built on Morpho (Morpho audit history here: 2- If interacting with ensure there hasn't been a frontend compromise by using a tx simulator like that available in Rabby Wallet to confirm the contracts you're interacting with (if about to execute a tx) are indeed the official contracts and not a malicious contract you're about to interact with via a frontend exploit 3- Review what vault you're lending to. Was it USDH Frontier? If so, visit and review the collateral markets the USDH Frontier vault is lending to. Has one of these collateral assets been compromised? If no issue with #1#, no issue with #2#, no issue with the collateral markets being supplied to (and not a personal private key leak), your funds are likely safe and the panic is unwarranted. Still good to review exactly what collateral assets you're lending to before submitting a deposit, the utilization of each, and the security of each asset by checking their respective audit reports as well. Just part of DeFi lending DD 4- But if panic is still sweeping across DeFi, and you're concerned utilization of the vault you're lending to is going to remain near 100% due to high withdrawal rates + you need your capital soon, check HyperEVMScan to see recent withdrawal and deposit data. From this, you can assess whether the withdrawals are recurring from many addresses or one whale + the velocity of withdrawals. Example for USDH Frontier vault: The power of Felix Vanilla / Morpho is the risk segmentation available across vaults. A lender to USDH Frontier is not by default exposed to USDT0 Frontier collateral markets. This makes the underwriting process much more straightforward for lenders, looking to avoid the pain of pooled risk. So you can take more aspects of DeFi risk into your control. Feel free to DM if in need of further risk help

Felix has no exposure to rsETH Over the past day, lenders across DeFi have been withdrawing liquidity out of 1) fear of rsETH exposure and 2) overall concern with DeFi protocol security. To address both concerns briefly: 1) Again, Felix has no rsETH exposure and 2) Felix Vanilla is built with @Morpho's infrastructure; this allows us to inherit Morpho’s smart contract security and risk-isolated design, so Felix vaults only have exposure to the specific markets they lend to (e.g. If another curator on Morpho lends to rsETH collateral, this does not lead to negative impact on Felix lenders) Some current supply rates on Felix for those interested: >USDH Flagship: 19.01% ($4m USDH supplied) >USDH Frontier: 23.97% ($11m USDH supplied) >USDC Flagship: 11.31% ($31m USDC supplied) >USDC Frontier: 24.48% ($18m USDC supplied) These rates will likely be arbed down in the days to come as lenders enter to take advantage, realizing Felix has no rsETH exposure, and borrowers repay freeing up more available liquidity. For more information on who is currently withdrawing to create these high supply rates / whether this is one large whale or a number of addresses, check the four links below from HyperEVMScan for each Felix vault mentioned above—TLDR: withdrawals from these vaults have been spread across a number of different addresses, not one address. >USDH Flagship: >USDH Frontier: >USDC Flagship: >USDC Frontier: For those less aware, "Frontier" vaults and "Flagship" vaults lend to different collateral markets (Frontier vaults tend to lend to higher max LTV collateral markets--higher risk + higher return). To see all current collateral exposure for each vault on Felix, check out: For more risk metrics across Felix vaults, feel free to check out our internal risk monitoring platform here: If you have questions on Felix's risk practices, how we build with Morpho, current collateral exposure, how we price collateral, how Flagship vs Frontier vaults differ, etc, feel free to DM me