Partners Group manages $186B. Its Next Generation Infrastructure fund owns pipelines, power plants, fiber and water utilities, and has returned 19.2% a year net since 2024. @AssetoFinance tokenized the fund as NGI+, which is now trading on Pendle. Here's NGI+ at a glance 👇

Pendle became the largest DeFi protocol by tokenized stocks TVL. Its RWA TVL has only gone up recently. Pendle team has always done a great job capitalizing on emerging narratives.

Partners Group manages $186B. Its Next Generation Infrastructure fund owns pipelines, power plants, fiber and water utilities, and has returned 19.2% a year net since 2024. @AssetoFinance tokenized the fund as NGI+, which is now trading on Pendle. Here's NGI+ at a glance 👇

You can now loop non-PT assets on Pendle ⚡ Jack up your $ETH staking, stablecoin or RWA yield in one click, with the top loops (minimum of $1M liquidity) at up to 56.76% APY right now

Yes, there's a 2nd Pendle Ecosystem Vault on @Morpho now, targeting higher yielding PTs. Braindead stable farming 🧠 > Deposit $USDC > Auto-allocated to high yield PT markets > Backed by PT looping demand > PTs get more liquidity > Depositors get 9.58% APY Winwin 🤝

Partners Group manages $186B across private markets. Its Next Generation Infrastructure fund holds about $2.5B in energy and digital infrastructure, from power generation to data centres, and invests alongside the firm’s flagship direct infrastructure program. That fund is now available onchain as @AssetoFinance's NGI+ and on Pendle, you can now strip, trade and fix its yield.

tokenization is transforming how global finance moves, shifting from closed institutional walls to open onchain liquidity infrastructure builds the core foundation but distribution unlocks massive retail and institutional demand across global markets @pendle_fi bridges this exact gap by creating robust yield markets, making tokenized assets more productive and accessible for everyone bringing new capital onchain isn't just an upgrade, it's the inevitable future of finance

ppl still tend to think of @pendle_fi as a place to farm yield and speculate on points. But Pendle is slowly moving away from the exact kind of incentive-heavy model that made it popular in the first place. – Q3 emissions down ~58%, with reported YTD cuts reaching ~93% – Annualized $PENDLE inflation ~0.2% – V2 TVL grew 43% in Q3 to ~$1.16B – Buybacks covered emissions 3.2x in Q3, up from 1.6x in Q2 – ~$1.36M used for buybacks during Q3 Cutting incentives that aggressively while TVL still grew is pretty wild, considering how much DeFi liquidity tends to disappear the moment rewards dry up. Instead of rewarding whoever parks the biggest bag, pools now earn roughly $0.25 in PENDLE for every $1 in weekly trading fees, capped at $625/week. Mature pools get just ~0.2% APR on up to $2.5M TVL, while another incentive stream rewards actual order-book depth, with issuer co-incentives getting a 15–22% match from Pendle. Basically, less free lunch for idle TVL. More rewards for pools that actually get used. This is where sPENDLE starts making sense. Rather than locking $PENDLE for up to two years under the old vePENDLE model, holders can now stake with a 14-day withdrawal cooldown, or pay 5% to exit instantly. Around 80% of retained protocol fees fund $PENDLE buybacks, which are distributed to active stakers every two weeks. → Better liquidity brings more trading, more trading generates fees, fees fund buybacks, and sPENDLE holders capture some of that activity instead of relying on fresh emissions. Meanwhile, Pendle's liquidity mix is quietly changing too. – RWA-backed dollars reached ~85% of its top 50 markets by end-Q3, up from ~70% mid-year – @ethena’s share went from ~77% in Aug 2025 to below 10% – @re, @withAUSD, Sky and other yield-bearing assets are taking a bigger slice Though there's still a catch. – Total fees fell ~18% in one Q3 comparison window – Trading fees dropped ~40% over that period – sPENDLE's estimated yield was only ~1.25% annualized in some periods So that 3.2x buyback/emission ratio isn't entirely because business is booming. A lot of it comes from cutting the emissions denominator. Plus, ~90% of capital faces maturities in Q4. Whether that money rolls over without heavy incentives is probably the biggest test ahead. Still, I like the direction here. Pendle already showed it can slash emissions without immediately nuking TVL. Now the question is whether fees and trading demand can grow enough to make the whole thing sustainable. Less paying people to park money, more earning from people actually using the product. That's a much more interesting version of DeFi imo.

Pendle has no exposure to Binance. Pendle V2 and @boros_fi are fully onchain and non-custodial. Funds are safe, products are operating normally. We hope for the best for everyone affected across the industry.

Crypto Enters the Era of Value Investing I’m getting more interested in tokens I can value using the money their protocols actually earn. Crypto now has businesses with paying users, recurring revenue, and mechanisms that return part of that revenue to the token. That gives me a much stronger reason to research something beyond its next catalyst. Zeneca’s latest research estimates annual spending on token buybacks and burns grew from $190M in 2021 to $1.85B in the year to Oct 2026. Coverage has expanded, but the scale is still worth paying attention to. So I believe we’re getting more opportunities to price a token against measurable demand funded by its own business. From a macro perspective, I still care about liquidity, rates, and risk appetite. Those conditions affect what investors are willing to pay. But I also want to understand what can sustain demand for a token when fresh speculative money slows down. A protocol earning money from customers and consistently buying its token gives me something concrete to evaluate. Hyperliquid is a clear example, its Assistance Fund converts trading fees into HYPE, and those tokens are burned. Usage creates a direct source of token demand. Pendle offers a different model: 80% of V2 yield and swap fees fund PENDLE buybacks, with repurchased tokens distributed to eligible active sPENDLE holders. That rewards participation, but has different supply effects from a permanent burn. I can be bullish on a protocol and still pass on its token. The product might be growing while most of the economics go to liquidity providers, the team, or the treasury. Fees, protocol revenue, and value returned to holders are separate numbers. So I’m paying closer attention to: → Revenue that holds up after incentives decline. → The amount actually reaching holders. → Buybacks relative to emissions and upcoming unlocks. → The growth already assumed by today’s valuation. If a token’s price halves while its dollar buyback budget stays unchanged, that budget can purchase twice as many tokens. For a business that keeps earning and burning, a drawdown can make each dollar of buybacks more effective. The difficult part is checking whether the revenue will hold up. Annualizing one exceptional trading week can make an expensive token look cheap. I think some of the best research opportunities are finding protocols whose earnings are more durable than their valuation suggests. I’m ranking conviction in the business and token mechanics; valuation still determines whether I’d buy. [1] $HYPE - Trading fees flowing through Hyperliquid’s Assistance Fund buy HYPE & burned. [2] $PENDLE - 80% of V2 yield and swap fees fund buybacks distributed to eligible active sPENDLE holders. [3] $SKY - Protocol surplus funds SKY purchases for burns or staking rewards, with new emissions disabled. [4] $RAY - 12% of pool trading fees fund RAY buybacks + trading activity and competition determining how durable those purchases are. [5] $PUMP - Its current program commits 50% of revenue to buybacks and burns for one year from April 2026. [6] $PONS - Its published V1 model directs 80% of protocol fees into PONS buybacks and burns. [7] $STONK - StonkFun has measurable spending on STONK purchases. But the recent revenue slowdown makes me cautious about projecting last month’s earnings forward. PONS and STONK are particularly interesting research candidates because small valuations and meaningful buybacks can coexist. The opportunity depends on how much revenue survives when activity cools. A low multiple calculated during a launch frenzy can disappear quickly if earnings fall faster than the token price. For anyone who wants to research this themselves, this i the quick calculation: Buyback multiple = market cap ÷ annual spending on token buybacks. A $1B token receiving $50M in annual buybacks trades at 20× that spending. I’d also check FDV and future supply, then recalculate using quieter periods. Tools that make this easier: - @DefiLlama: compare revenue and holder revenue across 7-, 30-, and 90-day periods. Read each protocol’s methodology. - @coingecko: check market cap, FDV, supply, and trading markets. - @Tokenomist_ai: check available unlock and emissions schedules. - @solscanofficial / @blockscout: verify purchases, burns, supply, and treasury movements. The setup that excites me is a growing business, meaningful value reaching its token, and a price that still underestimates both. That gives me a thesis I can track, update, and build conviction around.

Tokenized RWAs reached $39.3B onchain this month, up more than 80% since January, with issuers like BlackRock and Apollo already bringing funds and credit onchain. The question now is what can holders actually do with these assets once they arrive? For the latest Pendle RWA Insights, we posed 10 questions to Sebastian Pulido, Managing Director and Head of Onchain Asset Management at @Grayscale 👇

PendleLoop is now live, letting users Loop to Long @Base tokenized stocks onchain, powered by @Aave markets. Enjoy incentives when you Loop to Long these stocks, claimable on @Merkl_xyz