The post Sky-Backed Obex Raises $37M to Build ‘Y Combinator’ for Stablecoins appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Obex, a new crypto incubator, has raised $37 million to support building the next generation of yield-generating stablecoins led by Framework Ventures, LayerZero and the Sky ecosystem, the team has told CoinDesk in an interview. The initiative set out to invest and provide capital to projects that bring real-world asset-backed strategies onchain, bringing institutional-grade risk controls and underwriting practices to the fast-moving sector. Obex will be the latest capital allocator of Sky, the entity formerly known as MakerDAO behind the DAI and USDS stablecoins with a combined $9 billion market cap, providing funding for projects to scale from the protocol’s vast reserves and earn yield from their strategies. “While we see stablecoins going to a trillion [dollar market], I think yield-bearing stablecoins are moving even faster,” Vance Spencer, co-founder of Framework Ventures, told CoinDesk in an interview. Stablecoins, a group of cryptocurrencies that aim to keep a stable price anchored to an external asset like the U.S. dollar, are rapidly growing asset class. While they are mostly backed by fiat money, government bonds and increasingly used for cross-border payments, an emerging group of tokens seek to offer competitive yield to holders through investment strategies in the backend. Often dubbed synthetic stablecoins, the most notable example among them Ethena’s $8 billion token USDE, which generates yield by holding spot cryptos while simultaneously shorting an equal amount of derivatives for a neutral trading position. However, some backing strategies could turn out to be risky causing the tokens losing their supposed price anchor. A string of synthetic stablecoins, including Stream Finance’s USDX and Elixir’s deUSD, recently lost their peg following a contagion in DeFi triggered by decentralized protocol Balancer’s exploit. Obex was designed to avoid these stablecoin failures, which highlighted the need for more rigorous oversight and better technical foundations, Spencer said. “We… The post Sky-Backed Obex Raises $37M to Build ‘Y Combinator’ for Stablecoins appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Obex, a new crypto incubator, has raised $37 million to support building the next generation of yield-generating stablecoins led by Framework Ventures, LayerZero and the Sky ecosystem, the team has told CoinDesk in an interview. The initiative set out to invest and provide capital to projects that bring real-world asset-backed strategies onchain, bringing institutional-grade risk controls and underwriting practices to the fast-moving sector. Obex will be the latest capital allocator of Sky, the entity formerly known as MakerDAO behind the DAI and USDS stablecoins with a combined $9 billion market cap, providing funding for projects to scale from the protocol’s vast reserves and earn yield from their strategies. “While we see stablecoins going to a trillion [dollar market], I think yield-bearing stablecoins are moving even faster,” Vance Spencer, co-founder of Framework Ventures, told CoinDesk in an interview. Stablecoins, a group of cryptocurrencies that aim to keep a stable price anchored to an external asset like the U.S. dollar, are rapidly growing asset class. While they are mostly backed by fiat money, government bonds and increasingly used for cross-border payments, an emerging group of tokens seek to offer competitive yield to holders through investment strategies in the backend. Often dubbed synthetic stablecoins, the most notable example among them Ethena’s $8 billion token USDE, which generates yield by holding spot cryptos while simultaneously shorting an equal amount of derivatives for a neutral trading position. However, some backing strategies could turn out to be risky causing the tokens losing their supposed price anchor. A string of synthetic stablecoins, including Stream Finance’s USDX and Elixir’s deUSD, recently lost their peg following a contagion in DeFi triggered by decentralized protocol Balancer’s exploit. Obex was designed to avoid these stablecoin failures, which highlighted the need for more rigorous oversight and better technical foundations, Spencer said. “We…

Sky-Backed Obex Raises $37M to Build ‘Y Combinator’ for Stablecoins

2025/11/19 10:13

Obex, a new crypto incubator, has raised $37 million to support building the next generation of yield-generating stablecoins led by Framework Ventures, LayerZero and the Sky ecosystem, the team has told CoinDesk in an interview.

The initiative set out to invest and provide capital to projects that bring real-world asset-backed strategies onchain, bringing institutional-grade risk controls and underwriting practices to the fast-moving sector.

Obex will be the latest capital allocator of Sky, the entity formerly known as MakerDAO behind the DAI and USDS stablecoins with a combined $9 billion market cap, providing funding for projects to scale from the protocol’s vast reserves and earn yield from their strategies.

“While we see stablecoins going to a trillion [dollar market], I think yield-bearing stablecoins are moving even faster,” Vance Spencer, co-founder of Framework Ventures, told CoinDesk in an interview.

Stablecoins, a group of cryptocurrencies that aim to keep a stable price anchored to an external asset like the U.S. dollar, are rapidly growing asset class. While they are mostly backed by fiat money, government bonds and increasingly used for cross-border payments, an emerging group of tokens seek to offer competitive yield to holders through investment strategies in the backend. Often dubbed synthetic stablecoins, the most notable example among them Ethena’s $8 billion token USDE, which generates yield by holding spot cryptos while simultaneously shorting an equal amount of derivatives for a neutral trading position.

However, some backing strategies could turn out to be risky causing the tokens losing their supposed price anchor. A string of synthetic stablecoins, including Stream Finance’s USDX and Elixir’s deUSD, recently lost their peg following a contagion in DeFi triggered by decentralized protocol Balancer’s exploit.

Obex was designed to avoid these stablecoin failures, which highlighted the need for more rigorous oversight and better technical foundations, Spencer said. “We cannot have people creating $500 million stablecoins and blowing them up,” he said. “Sky has the infrastructure to scale these safely.”

The initiative will focus on stablecoins backed by high-quality, real-world collateral focusing on three key areas: compute credits, such as tokenized GPU infrastructure; energy assets like municipal-scale solar and battery deployments; and loans to large fintechs, which often lack access to credit lines despite their size.

The incubator will run a 12-week program for early-stage teams, offering capital, technical resources and access to Sky’s infrastructure.

Teams that pass risk and governance reviews may qualify for additional capital from Sky, which has recently authorized in a governance vote to deploy up to $2.5 billion in USDS into Obex projects.

Spencer described Obex as a “Y Combinator for stablecoins,” a reference to the influential Silicon Valley startup accelerator. “You look around San Francisco and see stablecoin ads everywhere. We receive five-to-ten pitches every day,” he said. “The energy is there.”

“What’s missing is infrastructure: to underwrite these ideas properly, to ensure they’re safe, and to actually bring them to scale,” he added.

Read more: DeFi Set to Challenge TradFi With $2T in Tokenized Assets by 2028: Standard Chartered

Source: https://www.coindesk.com/business/2025/11/18/obex-raises-usd37m-to-build-y-combinator-for-rwa-backed-stablecoins-led-by-framework-sky

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact [email protected] for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

The truth behind Yala's decoupling: From illegal collateralization to liquidity extraction, a meticulously planned escape.

The truth behind Yala's decoupling: From illegal collateralization to liquidity extraction, a meticulously planned escape.

According to the announcement, the hackers stole 7.64 million USDC, the team injected 5.5 million USD of their own funds, and obtained additional liquidity through the Euler platform. Based on this calculation, the additional liquidity obtained through Euler amounted to approximately 2.14 million USD. Here's the first point of contention: YU is minted by staking YBTC. Obtaining $2.14 million through Euler means that the protocol staked more than $2.14 million of YU in Euler, which is backed by at least $3 million of BTC as collateral. If the $3 million worth of BTC belonged to the YALA team, why not simply exchange the BTC for USDT instead of paying a high interest rate to borrow from Euler? I can think of two possibilities: ① YALA's YU used as collateral for Euler does not have sufficient YBTC. ② The BTC corresponding to this portion of YBTC is not actually controlled by YALA (for example, through some kind of side agreement). The announcement also mentioned that some assets had been converted into Ethereum before trading resumed, but the subsequent price drop, coupled with the funds invested by the attackers, reduced the actual value of the restored assets. Herein lies the second point of contention: Based on an ETH price of 3000 USDT, the recoverable portion of the stolen funds is approximately $4.9 million. This means that recovered funds plus the project's own $5.5 million would exceed the $7.64 million shortfall. Given this situation, why couldn't the project team obtain the remaining $2.14 million in funding or a bridge loan through other means? After all, the project team has the ability to repay after the funds are recovered. I can think of three possibilities: ① The project team has no plans to resume operations, and any recovered funds will be used to repay their own capital first. ② The project's creditworthiness has been insufficient to secure additional funding, or other losses far exceed $2.14 million. Further investigation of YBTC data reveals that 99% of YBTC is controlled by three addresses, which also means that 99% of YU is controlled by these four addresses. Let's tentatively name them Address A through Address C. Next, we will analyze the behavior of each address one by one: Address A: Founded 39.35 million YU, repaid 17 million YU, net debt approximately 22 million YU, address balance 2.4 million YU. Address B: Minted 43.57 million YU, repaid 10 million YU, net debt 33.57 million YU, address balance 2.77 million YU. Most of the YU from Address B (approximately 30.15 million) flowed into contract 0x9593807414, which is Yala's Stability Pool. The current total deposits shown in the Stability Pool are 32.8 million YU. This means that Address B is also perfectly normal. Address C: A total of 32.5 million YU has been minted, 33.3 million YU has been repaid, and YBTC has been destroyed and BTC retrieved. All transactions are normal. Clearly, the problem lies with address A, so let's investigate further. Address A's transactions are highly complex, but overall, it net minted 28 million YU and obtained additional YU through other addresses. The vast majority of this YU has already flowed into various protocols. From Dabank, we can see other more interesting data: this address pledged a large amount of YU and PT, borrowing a total of $4.93 million in USDT and USDC from Euler. Clearly, these three loans were effectively defaulted on after YU fell to $0.15. This address used a small amount of U to purchase YALA 12 days ago, and also made a partial repayment to Euler. Given that the team mentioned "injecting $5.5 million" and obtaining additional liquidity through the Euler platform, this address is very likely the team's operating address, and we now know that the team obtained approximately $4.9 million in liquidity from Euler. This is a dividing line. The above is objective data and facts. What follows is my speculation and may not be accurate. (1) YALA obtained approximately 500 illegal YBTC through some means (meaning that YALA had no substantial control over the corresponding 500 BTC) and used these 500 YBTC to mint 28 million YU (which we will call illegal YU for now). These illicit funds may have been used for other purposes in the past, such as obtaining airdrops, providing DEX liquidity, or depositing into Pendle, but that's not important. I think the reason why 500 YBTC is illegal is simple: if you have $50 million of BTC at your disposal, you wouldn't take out a high-interest loan for a $7.64 million funding need. (2) After the hackers stole 7.64 million USDC, YALA used some of the illicit YU to obtain a loan of about 4.9 million USD from Euler, while also providing some of its own funds in an attempt to get the agreement back on track. One problem here is that the $5.5 million in equity funds claimed in the agreement plus the $4.9 million in illicit loans totals more than $7.64 million in funding shortfall. There are also many potential possibilities, such as the $5.5 million figure being exaggerated or a portion of the Euler loan being returned to the provider of the $5.5 million. (3) After the hacker was arrested, due to some factors, the recoverable funds were far less than US$7.64 million, such as the previously mentioned US$4.9 million (considering the disposal process, the actual recoverable funds were even lower). In this case, the YALA protocol would still bear a loss of more than US$2.7 million. In this situation, address A chose to default, shifting the losses to Euler, but at the cost of the YALA protocol going bankrupt and ceasing operations. (4) Who is the instigator? As mentioned before, more than 99% of YALA and YU are held by three addresses (plus one bfBTC depositor). Addresses B and C do not have any net inflow or outflow of YU and are not involved in the whole thing. BTC depositors will not suffer any losses; they simply need to repay YU and retrieve their BTC. The losers are holders of YU and its derivative assets, as well as Euler depositors. This money flowed to address A, ultimately benefiting the YALA team. They shifted the losses onto the users, and even profited if the team embezzled the $4.9 million from the judicial proceedings. Of course, all of this is based on the assumption that address A belongs to the YALA Team.
Share
PANews2025/11/19 12:00