Connect with us

Crypto World

How STON.fi’s Omniston Scaled DeFi on TON

Published

on

How STON.fi's Omniston Scaled DeFi on TON

Building a swap DApp is relatively straightforward. Running it under real market conditions — with bots, arbitrageurs, and volatile liquidity — is not. BeInCrypto sat down with Andrey Fedorov, CMO & CBDO at STON.fi Dev at Consensus Hong Kong to hear what that process actually looked like.

STON.fi launched as an AMM (automated market maker) on TON Blockchain — a swap interface with liquidity pools. Omniston, its liquidity aggregation protocol, came later as a response to fragmentation: multiple DEXs on TON meant users had to manually compare prices across protocols. Omniston was supposed to fix that by aggregating liquidity into a single access point.

Aggregation worked. But scale exposed new constraints.

Three Lessons From Production

Fedorov is candid about what went wrong early on. “First there was just one token, and it was very easy to provide the technology. Activity levels were minimal, and the user base was still small. But over time it exploded.”

Advertisement

The first lesson was scaling. Both the front end and back end buckled under unexpected demand. The second was subtler: multi-hop swaps — routing trades through intermediate tokens — worked in testing but revealed edge cases under live conditions. “In theory, both hops execute seamlessly,” Fedorov explains. “In practice, you have simultaneous transactions, liquidity shifting across pools, and multiple DEXs updating state at once. The first hop can succeed while the second fails.”

The third lesson was about complexity itself. The initial model assumed a simple set of actors: users swap, liquidity providers provide. Reality added arbitrageurs, bots, and more complex interaction patterns that hadn’t yet been fully anticipated. “I don’t think it is actually possible to work out all these things in the beginning. You need to launch it, see how it goes, then fix something if it breaks.”

STON.fi now accounts for 80 to 90 percent of DEX activity on TON, underscoring its dominant share of swap volume on the chain. But cross-chain swaps, next on the roadmap, will reset that counter. “The fundamentals will be the same, but I’m sure we will see new challenges.”

Andrey Fedorov at Consensus HK

Why Aggregation Wasn’t Enough

Omniston’s original proposition was to connect all TON DEX pools and find the best route. But aggregating public liquidity has a ceiling. If nobody has added liquidity to a particular pair, no amount of smart routing helps.

“Sometimes people just don’t want to provide liquidity in a specific pool,” Fedorov says. “When a user wants to swap a token in this pool, they can’t get a good price because there is no liquidity.”

Advertisement

The answer was escrow swaps — a parallel execution path that taps into private liquidity from professional market makers, or “resolvers.” Instead of relying solely on AMM pools, Omniston now evaluates both public and private sources and routes each swap through whichever delivers the better outcome.

“It’s not a silver bullet, because we need to have both. The combination provides the best experience.”

Tokenized Equities as a Stress Test

The escrow model proved its value when STON.fi integrated xStocks — tokenized representations of US equities issued by Backed Finance. These are technically TON jettons, but they behave differently from crypto-native tokens in ways that matter for execution.

The harder challenge was liquidity: unlike established crypto pairs, xStocks don’t yet have deep AMM pools across pairs. Technically, AMM support is there. But we also introduced an additional execution path — escrow swaps — so users can access deeper liquidity. Today, most xStocks volume executes through escrow.

Advertisement

From the user’s perspective, Fedorov insists the experience should feel identical to any other swap. “We want our users to forget about technical complexity. Under the hood it is different, but users don’t see it.”

The Self-Custody Trade-off

Fedorov is direct about the constraints of remaining fully non-custodial. 

“Sometimes we see solutions with strong traction — big user bases, high volume. From a business standpoint, integrating them would boost our growth immediately. But many of them are centralized. When I bring those options to our technical team, the answer is simple: it doesn’t work like that.” STON.fi is non-custodial. Users keep their assets in their wallets. Swaps are executed by smart contracts.

Centralized integrations are faster and simpler — often just an API connection. DeFi integrations require trustless, contract-level logic where assets never leave the user’s wallet. “We could grow faster if we compromised on custody. But then we wouldn’t be building DeFi infrastructure — we’d be building another fintech layer.”

Advertisement

The trade-off isn’t only technical. It’s educational. Sometimes this creates a marketing and communication challenge. Self-custody shifts responsibility to the user — something many newcomers underestimate. “If someone loses their seed phrase, we can’t restore access. We don’t have it. We’ve never had it. But quite often users still come to us expecting support, like they would from a bank or centralized exchange.”

In centralized systems, there’s a safety net — password reset, account recovery, customer service with override power. In DeFi, security comes from not having that backdoor. The same mechanism that protects users also removes our ability to intervene.

For STON.fi, that means investing more in onboarding, education, and clearer UX — without diluting the core principle of self-custody.

“It’s a long-term bet. In the short term, education is harder. But in the long term, users understand the value of ownership. Especially in Web3, that’s the point.”

Advertisement

Distribution First, Then Depth

Fedorov frames TON not only as a blockchain choice but also as a distribution strategy because of its integration with Telegram. STON.fi and Omniston integrate with wallets, apps, games, and bots across the Telegram ecosystem — each one a potential swap surface. “They want to use the protocol because they want to enable swaps in their applications. But it is also our distribution network. It’s a win-win.”

The next phase is cross-chain aggregation — starting with Tron, then expanding to EVM chains — to unify liquidity across ecosystems rather than just across DEXs on a single chain.

“Make things easier for those who don’t want to think about technical stuff. Get wider distribution by integrating into all the apps. And aggregate liquidity from multiple blockchains, not just one,” Fedorov says. “That’s the roadmap. Now it’s about scaling it.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Crypto World

Polygon Surpasses Ethereum in Daily Fees as Polymarket Bets Surge

Published

on

Nexo Partners with Bakkt for US Crypto Exchange and Yield Programs

TLDR

  • Polygon surpassed Ethereum in daily transaction fees for the first time ever, with $407,100 in fees compared to Ethereum’s $211,700.
  • The surge in Polygon’s fees was driven by significant activity on Polymarket, especially surrounding Oscar betting.
  • Polymarket recorded over $15 million in wagers on a single Oscar category over the weekend, contributing to Polygon’s fee growth.
  • Polygon’s average transaction fee is around $0.0026, significantly lower than Ethereum’s fee of about $1.68.
  • Ethereum’s recent volatility, driven by large whale movements, created a more favorable environment for Polygon’s fee surge.

Polygon recently surpassed Ethereum in daily transaction fees, marking a significant shift in blockchain activity. This occurred when Polygon’s network recorded $407,100 in transaction fees on Friday, compared to Ethereum’s $211,700. The increase in Polygon’s revenue coincided with the surge in activity on Polymarket, particularly with Oscar betting.

Polymarket Drives Fee Surge

Polymarket, a decentralized prediction market, is behind much of Polygon’s newfound fee dominance. Over the weekend, it recorded more than $15 million in wagers for a single Oscar category, attracting considerable retail interest. This surge in betting activity directly translated into substantial network fees for Polygon, which exceeded $1 million in a single week.

This boost in transaction volume significantly impacted Polygon’s overall fee performance. Polymarket, which is built on Polygon’s blockchain, saw consistent traffic, helping drive up daily revenue. As a result, Polygon briefly overtook Ethereum in daily transaction fees, an outcome few expected given Ethereum’s dominant position.

Lower Transaction Fees Give Polygon an Edge

Polygon’s lower transaction costs have made it an attractive alternative to Ethereum for users engaging in frequent, smaller transactions. The average transaction fee on Polygon is around $0.0026, while Ethereum’s fees average about $1.68. This price difference makes Polygon the clear choice for many users, especially in markets like Polymarket, where multiple small bets are common.

The lower costs allow users to move funds more freely, resulting in a higher transaction volume. This increased volume has contributed to Polygon’s fee surge. According to sources, the majority of Polygon’s recent fee growth is attributed to Polymarket’s activity rather than other apps on the network, solidifying the importance of the prediction market.

Ethereum’s Volatility Adds Pressure

While Ethereum remains the dominant blockchain by many measures, its higher fees and increased volatility have made it less appealing for some users. Recently, large whale movements on Ethereum added to concerns about network stability, creating a sense of uncertainty. This has allowed Polygon to capitalize on the growing demand for lower-cost, more predictable transactions.

Despite Ethereum’s structural advantages, the recent surge in Polymarket’s activity has proven that consumer-driven demand can quickly shift fee dynamics.

Advertisement

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Crypto World

Strategy buys 2,486 BTC as a rare pattern points to a Bitcoin price crash

Published

on

Bitcoin price

Michael Saylor’s Strategy continued its Bitcoin buying spree last week, even as crypto winter persisted, and the coin formed a rare chart pattern pointing to more near-term downside.

Summary

  • Strategy, formerly known as MicroStrategy, acquired 2,486 Bitcoin last week.
  • The company now holds over 717,000 coins worth nearly $50 billion.
  • Technical analysis suggests that the Bitcoin price is forming a bearish pennant pattern, pointing to a crash.

In an X post, Saylor noted that the company bought 2,496 Bitcoin (BTC) last week for $168 million. This purchase brought its total holdings to 717,131 coins, now valued at nearly $50 billion.

Strategy executed the purchase by selling shares, a move that has continued to dilute its shareholders. Data show that the company still has over $7.8 billion in common shares to sell and an additional $20 billion in preferred STRK.

Advertisement

The company now has over 312 million of outstanding shares, much higher than what it had a few years ago. This dilution will continue, as Michael Saylor has pledged to buy Bitcoin forever. He also revealed that he plans to swap its debt for shares in the future.

Bitcoin price technical analysis points to a crash

The ongoing Strategy acquisition is happening amid concerns that Bitcoin may continue falling in the near term. In a statement last week, Standard Chartered warned that Bitcoin may drop to $50,000 before recovering. The bank reduced its target for the coin from $150,000 to $100,000.

Bitcoin is facing other headwinds, including the tumbling futures open interest, which has moved to $43 billion, down from last year’s high of $95 billion. 

Advertisement

At the same time, there are rising odds of a prolonged conflict in the Middle East despite the ongoing talks between Iran and the United States. Donald Trump has sent another carrier to the region, while Iran is conducting drills at the Strait of Hormuz.

A conflict in the Middle East would have a major impact on Bitcoin, which has proven that it is not a safe haven asset. 

Bitcoin price
BTC price chart | Source: crypto.news 

Technical analysis indicates that the Bitcoin price is slowly forming a bearish pennant pattern, consisting of a vertical line and a symmetrical triangle. The two lines of the triangle are nearing their confluence, meaning that the coin may soon drop to the year-to-date low of $60,000.

The bearish Bitcoin price outlook will become invalid if it moves above the key resistance level at $80,117, its lowest level in November last year.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Crypto World

Starknet Taps EY’s Nightfall for Institutional Privacy on Ethereum Rails

Published

on

Ethereum, Privacy, DeFi, zk-STARK, Institutions

Starknet developer StarkWare has integrated EY’s Nightfall privacy protocol to let institutions run private payments and decentralized finance (DeFi) activity on public Ethereum-aligned rails, targeting banks and corporates that need confidentiality without giving up auditability. 

In a Tuesday release shared with Cointelegraph, StarkWare positioned the move as a way for enterprises to use a shared, open layer-2 rather than closed, bank-only networks, while working with a Big Four firm that already audits many of the organizations it wants to onboard.

The integration brings Nightfall, an open-source zero-knowledge (ZK) privacy layer built by EY, that lets transactions be verified without revealing underlying data, onto Starknet to enable private B2B and cross-border payments, confidential treasury management and 24/7 tokenized asset transfers onchain.

StarkWare said that institutions will also be able to access Ethereum DeFi for activities such as lending, swaps and yield strategies, with transactions private by default but supporting selective disclosure, auditability and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols.

Advertisement

Related: Arbitrum, Optimism and Base weigh in after Vitalik questions L2 scaling model

Starknet and Nightfall target institutional flows

StarkWare frames this as a “major breakthrough” in making public blockchains usable for institutional capital that has so far been deterred by full onchain transparency and the resulting compliance and competitive risks.

Eli Ben-Sasson, StarkWare co-founder and CEO and a founding scientist of privacy-focused cryptocurrency Zcash (ZEC), said in the release that blockchains could give every institution “the equivalent of a private superhighway for stablecoins and tokenized deposits,” positioning Nightfall on Starknet as a concrete step toward that vision. 

Alex Gruell, StarkWare’s global head of business development, told Cointelegraph that Nightfall was “particularly useful for institutions requiring ready-to-go KYC verification as part of their onboarding to the blockchain,” and part of a broader privacy push on Starknet.

Advertisement
Ethereum, Privacy, DeFi, zk-STARK, Institutions
Alex Gruell, global head of business development. Source: StarkWare

He said that while crypto native teams had “moved mountains” building ZK infrastructure, the EY-built system added a complementary layer of institutional credibility and “regulatory fluency.”

Related: Vitalik Buterin tempers vision for ETH L2s, pushes native rollups

Gruell also cast Starknet plus Nightfall as an interoperability layer between institutions, contrasting it with what he claimed are “siloed” institutional environments on rival networks, which he said “do not serve as an interoperability infrastructure,” and permissioned models such as Canton Network, which are “not yet integrated with the Web3 ecosystem.”

He stressed that Nightfall would remain permissionless and fully integrated into Starknet, with a staged rollout, where initial deployment focused on “private payments and transfers with compliance gating and secure sequencing in place,” while “verifier upgrades and expanded functionality follow as the system scales.”

Starknet’s growth and teething trouble

Starknet has steadily grown into one of the larger ZK rollups by total value locked (TVL), currently about $280 million, with usage primarily driven by DeFi protocols and native ecosystem apps. 

Advertisement

At the same time, Starknet’s rapid scaling push has exposed reliability challenges. In 2025, the network suffered major outages tied to sequencer and infrastructure issues, prompting public post-mortems and commitments to harden reliability before courting more institutional flow. 

Magazine: Back to Ethereum — How Synthetix, Ronin and Celo saw the light