Here's the thing—issuers face strict restrictions on paying interest. But that doesn't seal off the whole ecosystem.
Exchanges, wallet providers, fintech apps? They're operating in a different lane. These platforms can absolutely roll out "rewards" programs to users, as long as the money comes from their own operations—not from the issuers themselves.
That's where the friction shows up. When a major exchange (like certain compliance-focused platforms) starts offering yield-bearing products, regulators scrutinize the setup. The question becomes: Is this genuinely funded by platform revenue, or is it a backdoor way for issuers to pay interest?
The loophole isn't really a loophole—it's just the boundary between what issuers can't do and what platforms can. Smart operators are building business models around that line, turning rewards into a competitive edge while staying technically compliant. That's what gets everyone fired up.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
8 Likes
Reward
8
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
MeltdownSurvivalist
· 01-15 10:53
View OriginalReply0
governance_ghost
· 01-15 07:49
The gameplay is like this; just change the disguise and it's fine.
View OriginalReply0
BearMarketHustler
· 01-12 23:04
Coming back to this again? Basically, it's just skirting the edge of legality—exchanges give rewards, wallets provide yield, as long as it's not directly from the issuer, that's fine? This logic... can't regulators really see through it?
View OriginalReply0
VirtualRichDream
· 01-12 23:03
Basically, it's just pushing the boundaries, since the legal texts are just those words. Smart people are all figuring out how to exploit the loopholes.
View OriginalReply0
MEV_Whisperer
· 01-12 23:02
Basically, it's just playing word games. Since the token issuer can't provide returns, the exchange can just do it. Anyway, regulators can't oversee every detail.
View OriginalReply0
SolidityNewbie
· 01-12 22:56
NGL, this is just playing word games. As long as the money doesn't come directly from the issuer, it's fine... Smart people do this.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeBarbecue
· 01-12 22:39
Basically, it's about finding a loophole between regulation and business. Anyway, exchanges and wallets are much more flexible than issuers.
The regulatory workaround everyone's debating
Here's the thing—issuers face strict restrictions on paying interest. But that doesn't seal off the whole ecosystem.
Exchanges, wallet providers, fintech apps? They're operating in a different lane. These platforms can absolutely roll out "rewards" programs to users, as long as the money comes from their own operations—not from the issuers themselves.
That's where the friction shows up. When a major exchange (like certain compliance-focused platforms) starts offering yield-bearing products, regulators scrutinize the setup. The question becomes: Is this genuinely funded by platform revenue, or is it a backdoor way for issuers to pay interest?
The loophole isn't really a loophole—it's just the boundary between what issuers can't do and what platforms can. Smart operators are building business models around that line, turning rewards into a competitive edge while staying technically compliant. That's what gets everyone fired up.