Recently, I revisited the logic of Falcon Finance and the more I looked, the more I realized that bypassing a common pitfall is quite important—many people are eager to label this type of project. Stablecoin? Yield protocol? Investors are repeatedly confused by $FF's K-line chart. But frankly, these labels are just superficial.

The real question is: is the chosen track for the project correct?

The on-chain scene is filled with various projects, but most rely on a single approach to survive. Stablecoin projects fixate on stablecoins, yield protocols only focus on yields, and they stick to their routines. How do these projects die? Market sentiment reverses, funding rates normalize, arbitrage windows disappear—immediately exposing their vulnerabilities. Remember those once-hot liquidity mining projects? Remember protocols that survived through specific arbitrage? They all end the same way.

FF sees through this. It hasn't bet all its chips on a single arbitrage mechanism, a specific fee cycle, or a short-term gameplay. Their approach is different—they focus on one thing: making USDf a tool that is continuously used. Notice I’m not talking about yields, but real use cases. Many people haven't understood this detail.

Think from a different perspective: if USDf is just a high-yield stablecoin, the ceiling is right there. When yields decline, funds will turn and run—I've seen this too many times. But what if USDf plays roles in multiple ecosystems as a settlement medium, an incentive token, or collateral? The story completely changes. It’s no longer sustained solely by APY but driven by actual applications.