Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)
Author | Ethan (@ethanzhangweb3)_
In the DeFi world, TVL is a key metric—it symbolizes the strength of a protocol and serves as a barometer of user trust. However, a controversy surrounding the falsification of metrics related to $12 billion in RWA assets has quickly shattered user trust.
On September 10, Figure co-founder Mike Cagney took to the X platform to fire the first shot, publicly accusing the on-chain data platform DefiLlama of refusing to display its RWA TVL solely because of “insufficient social media followers,” and questioning the fairness of its “decentralization standards.”
A few days later, DefiLlama co-founder 0xngmi published a lengthy article titled “The Problem in RWA Metrics” in response, revealing data anomalies behind Figure's claimed $12 billion scale point by point, directly pointing out that its on-chain data is unverifiable, assets lack real transfer paths, and there are even suspicions of evading due diligence.
Thus, a full-blown battle for trust over “on-chain verifiability” versus “off-chain mapping logic” erupted.
Event Timeline: Figure Takes Initiative, DefiLlama Responds Firmly
The spark for this controversy came from Figure co-founder Mike Cagney's tweet.
On September 10, he announced on the X platform that Figure's home equity line of credit (HELOCs) had successfully landed on CoinGecko, but simultaneously accused DefiLlama of refusing to display Figure's $13 billion TVL on the Provenance chain. He pointed his finger directly at DefiLlama's “review logic,” even stating that they rejected his listing due to “insufficient X followers.” (Odaily Note: Here Mike Cagney mentions $13 billion, which is inconsistent with the $12 billion mentioned later in 0xngmi's response.)
Shortly after, about an hour later, Provenance Blockchain CEO Anthony Moro (who seemed to have intervened without grasping the full context) commented on the same post, expressing strong distrust towards the industry data platform DefiLlama:
Subsequently, Figure co-founder Mike Cagney added that he understood the development costs of integrating a new L1, but also stated that CoinGecko and DefiLlama had never asked Figure for fees or tokens, clarifying the implication of “paying for listing.”
On September 12, L1 data dashboard Artemis co-founder and CEO Jon Ma (who also seemed to have publicly extended an olive branch without fully understanding the details of the controversy) made a statement.
During this period, public sentiment appeared to lean significantly towards Figure—many observers pointed their fingers at DefiLlama's “credibility and neutrality.”
It wasn't until September 13 that DefiLlama co-founder 0xngmi published a lengthy article titled “The Problem in RWA Metrics,” systematically disclosing their due diligence findings and four points of questioning, which began to shift the narrative; soon after, opinion leaders like ZachXBT shared support, emphasizing that “these metrics are not 100% verifiable on-chain,” and DefiLlama's position gained broader support.
DefiLlama's Investigation Results: Data Doesn't Match
In the long article “The Problem in RWA Metrics”, 0xngmi revealed the results of DefiLlama's due diligence on Figure, listing multiple anomalies point by point:
On-chain asset scale severely mismatches claimed scale
Figure claims that its on-chain issued RWA scale reaches $12 billion, but the actual verifiable assets on-chain are only about $5 million in BTC and $4 million in ETH. The 24-hour trading volume of BTC is even only $2,000.
Insufficient stablecoin supply
Figure's own issued stablecoin YLDS has a total supply of only $20 million, theoretically all RWA transactions should be based on this, but the supply is far from sufficient to support a $12 billion trading scale.
Suspicious asset transfer patterns
Most RWA asset transfer transactions are not initiated by the actual asset holders but are operated through other accounts. Many addresses have almost no on-chain interactions, suspected to be mere database mirrors.
Lack of on-chain payment traces
The vast majority of Figure's loan processes are still completed through fiat currency, with almost no corresponding payment and repayment records found on-chain.
0xngmi added: “We are unsure how Figure's $12 billion asset scale was formed through transactions. Most holders seem not to have transferred these assets using their own keys—are they just mapping their internal databases onto the chain?”
Community Response: DefiLlama Receives Overwhelming Support
As the controversy spread, community sentiment overwhelmingly supported DefiLlama, but during this process, some differing voices also emerged.
ZachXBT (On-chain Detective):
Stated directly that Figure's actions constitute “open pressure”, and clearly pointed out: “No, your company is trying to publicly pressure verified participants like DefiLlama with metrics that are not 100% verifiable on-chain.”
Conor Grogan (Coinbase Board Member):
Pointed the finger at those who, during the controversy, were lobbied by Figure and privately questioned DefiLlama. He wrote: “I have received many private messages from people at large cryptocurrency institutions and venture capital firms contacting defillama and our partners. Each of these individuals needs to be named in person and asked how they can work in this industry if they can't even verify things themselves.”
Conor's statement echoed the sentiments of many: if even basic on-chain verification cannot be independently completed, then the credibility of these institutions in the RWA and DeFi space will be significantly undermined.
Ian Kane (Partnership Lead at Midnight Network):
Proposed a more technical suggestion, suggesting that DefiLlama could add a new metric of “active TVL” in addition to the existing TVL tracking, to show the actual transfer speed of RWA over a certain period. He gave an example: “Example: Two DApps each mint $100 billion in TVL (totaling $200 billion). DApp 1 has $100 billion just sitting there, possibly with only 2% of funds flowing, generating $2 billion in active locked value, while DApp 2 has 30% of funds flowing, generating $30 billion in active locked value (15 times that of DApp 1).”
In his view, this dimension can show the total scale while avoiding “stagnant or performative TVL.”
Meanwhile, ZachXBT also noted that Figure co-founder Mike Cagney continuously retweeted some seemingly AI-generated “supportive comments,” and publicly pointed this out, further provoking resentment towards Figure's public relations operations.
Conclusion: The Cost of Trust is Just Beginning to Show
The dispute between Figure and DefiLlama appears to be a ranking controversy, but it actually strikes at the core vulnerability of the RWA space—what exactly counts as “on-chain assets.”
The core contradiction of this controversy is actually on-chain fundamentalism vs off-chain mapping logic.
- DefiLlama's insistence: Only counts TVL that can be verified on-chain, adheres to open-source adapter logic, and refuses to accept asset data that fails to meet transparency.
- Figure's model: Assets may genuinely exist, but the business logic relies more on traditional financial systems, with the on-chain part merely reflecting a database. In other words, users cannot prove the flow of assets through on-chain transactions, which conflicts with the “verifiability” standard of DeFi natives.
The so-called $12 billion, if it cannot be verified on-chain, is equivalent to 0.
In an industry where transparency and verifiability are the baseline, any attempt to bypass on-chain verification and use database numbers to impersonate on-chain TVL will ultimately backfire on user and market trust.
This controversy may just be the beginning. In the future, as more RWA protocols emerge, similar issues will continue to arise. The industry urgently needs to establish clear and unified verification standards; otherwise, “virtual TVL” will continue to inflate, becoming the next bombshell that undermines trust.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
