Talking about Falcon Finance, initially I didn't take it seriously at all. Last year I fell victim to a rug pull—there was a project that promised returns of thousands of times, but within less than half a day it disappeared. Since then, every time I see the words "high returns" I instinctively steer clear. But last weekend, out of curiosity, I ended up digging through all the on-chain data from this protocol, checking the flow of each transaction one by one. The result was actually quite interesting: the most fascinating part of Falcon is that it looks very "ordinary."
Today we are not discussing grand development plans, just want to talk about two real questions: where does the money actually come from? Can a model like this survive until the next bear market?
Regarding the source of yield, I don't see the dashboard made by the project team, just check the income contract address in the blockchain explorer, and trace them one by one. Guess what I found? All of it is real income—cross-chain transaction fees, the interest rate difference between borrowing and lending, and data service call fees. It's not a model that just prints its own tokens and then transfers them from one hand to another. It's like opening a restaurant: you can choose to profit from selling real food or crazily distribute vouchers so that the money from new customers is used to subsidize old customers. The first method may not be flashy but can last long, the second is busy but sooner or later will self-destruct. Falcon chooses the first way.
Of course, a model like this also has a fatal weakness—the upper limit of its income entirely depends on how active the ecosystem is. If the market enters a winter season, activity on the chain will slow down, and the original income will also drop drastically.
