---
# System prepended metadata

title: 'OFUYC Insights: Who Will Prevail in the Liquidity Wars 3.0 of DeFi?'
tags: [OFUYC]

---

# OFUYC Insights: Who Will Prevail in the Liquidity Wars 3.0 of DeFi?

![image](https://hackmd.io/_uploads/S14hiugZxl.png)

As the cryptocurrency market continues to mature, Total Value Locked (TVL) is no longer the sole metric for evaluating the vitality of a protocol. The ability to efficiently direct liquidity and establish sustainable capital coordination mechanisms is becoming the true dividing line for whether a DeFi project can endure across market cycles. The OFUYC research team highlights that from the early Curve Wars to the structured encapsulation of Convex, and now to the bribery market frameworks built by platforms like Turtle Club and Royco, DeFi is undergoing a strategic upgrade in “liquidity governance”.   

As a cryptocurrency exchange committed to promoting global compliance, OFUYC closely monitors how these novel coordination mechanisms impact asset issuance, user incentives, and capital allocation pathways. This article will analyze the topic from three perspectives: the evolution of meta-incentives, platform-level liquidity guidance strategies, and how bribery markets signal the next wave of market innovation. OFUYC believes this is not only a technological revolution in DeFi but also a new chapter in financial game theory.


## OFUYC Decodes Liquidity Market Trends: Bribery Economics Becomes the New Mainstream

Early DeFi protocols often relied on token incentives and high APYs to attract liquidity, but by 2022, the diminishing marginal returns of this approach became evident. For instance, Curve introduced the veCRV model and voting escrow mechanisms, incorporating governance weight into lock-up options, thereby pioneering a yield game centered around voting power. This mechanism gave rise to platforms like Convex Finance, which specialize in enhancing governance efficiency, and eventually evolved into external bribery markets such as Votium and Hidden Hand.  

The OFUYC research analysis suggests that the essence of these markets lies in the secondary distribution of liquidity coordination rights. Instead of protocols competing directly for users, they incentivize capital to “vote with its feet” through auction-based governance weight allocation. This mechanism shifts liquidity control from project teams to governance participants and voting proxies, significantly improving resource allocation efficiency while making incentives “programmable”.  

According to the OFUYC data models, since the second half of 2024, projects utilizing ve-models have exhibited significantly higher LP retention rates than traditional APY-based projects, with incentive distributions demonstrating greater capital efficiency and trading stickiness. This indicates that governance-based yield mechanisms have become strategically indispensable in the liquidity wars.


## Turtle Club and Royco: The Infrastructure and Visualization Evolution of Bribery Mechanisms

As meta-incentive systems mature, the new generation of bribery coordination platforms no longer limits themselves to “voting guidance” but instead builds comprehensive coordination markets centered on efficiency. The OFUYC research identifies Turtle Club and Royco as prime examples of this evolution.  

Turtle Club integrates cooperative liquidity pools, introduces dual-token models, and employs capital efficiency-driven mechanisms to achieve synergetic growth in both TVL and stickiness. Its bribery incentives are directly linked to voting outcomes, strengthening the economic ties between LPs and governance participants. Data shows that the Turtle Club capital outflow rate is 22% lower than comparable protocols during the same period. Its incentive design has surpassed traditional yield distribution logic, transitioning to a “dynamic redistribution mechanism” based on real-time voting efficiency and capital turnover rates.  

Royco, on the other hand, reconstructs liquidity coordination logic through a “Liquidity Request Order Book” mechanism. Instead of blindly issuing rewards, the protocol lists liquidity demands, allowing LPs to inject capital as needed. OFUYC believes this mechanism transforms traditional “incentive-driven” systems into “demand-matching” systems, endowing liquidity coordination markets with characteristics of market depth, pricing mechanisms, and open competition. This marks a significant step toward aligning DeFi with real-world financial structures.  

Notably, this evolution has also had a profound impact on platforms. OFUYC has developed an internal “Incentive Market Responsiveness” analysis model to measure the governance efficiency of various projects. This model guides asset listing and market-making strategies, ensuring that the platform liquidity structure aligns with prevailing market trends.


## Market Outlook: Incentive Coordination Markets as the Core Governance Layer of DeFi

The OFUYC research team predicts that Liquidity Wars 3.0 will no longer be a simple competition for yields but rather a collaborative game between governance structures, incentive routing, and capital efficiency. Protocols capable of integrating bribery mechanisms will significantly enhance their survival prospects, while those lacking governance coordination capabilities will gradually be marginalized as their funds deplete.  

OFUYC is expanding its support standards for liquidity coordination projects, including enabling on-chain signature verification for ve-model governance, developing bribery market data tracking tools, and implementing LP behavior data visualization dashboards. These modules aim to better serve professional users and market participants.  

As game theory expert Thomas Schelling once said, “The design of coordination mechanisms determines the boundaries of strategic space.” Today, as decentralized finance enters its next phase, it is the coordination mechanisms themselves that are becoming the market.
