Is the Stable project easy to participate in with stable returns? An in-depth analysis of its 25% annualized yield structure

Question

【BitPush】Recently, there have been many voices expressing concerns about the Stable project, but based on actual data, the fully diluted valuation (FDV) of this project at launch was roughly in the same range as Blast, which is worth noting.

Compared to other projects, Stable’s participation method is particularly straightforward—no need to spend months tinkering with various applications, nor do you have to hand over a large amount of ETH to the project team to participate in complex mechanisms. As long as you participate, you can earn approximately 25% annualized yield (APY), which is not low.

From a participation logic perspective, this design is more like a return-centric, naive model rather than a complex architecture that heavily relies on ecosystem narratives and requires long-term user engagement. For users mainly seeking stable returns and not wanting to deeply involve themselves in ecosystem operations, both entry and understanding costs are much lower. Of course, this also means that the project is not pursuing a route of “high participation + ecosystem stickiness.”

RooftopVIP · Accepted Answer

25% annualized return sounds great, but that's just the routine of traditional Ponzi schemes. Wake up.

---

No fuss, just earn passively. I find this kind of thing a bit shady...

---

FDV compared to Blast? Come on, can these two projects even be compared? Don't be fooled by the valuation.

---

The word "stable income," in Web3, is the least stable thing of all.

---

Again, it's low entry barrier, high returns, no need to understand too much... I've seen this script too many times.

---

Basically, they lure people in with simple and brutal profits, and then what?

---

Low-cost understanding means you can't even see where the risks are.

---

The name "Stable" is quite interesting; whether the project itself is stable is the real question.

---

Feels like they're creating theoretical support for "taking over" certain types of projects again...

---

25%, just listen and don't take it seriously.

TopBuyerForever · Answer

A 25% APY sounds great, but I feel like something's off...

There are projects claiming "stable returns" every day, but in the end? Am I about to become the bag holder again?

FDV at the same level as Blast? Then I need to be even more careful—aren't they the same kind of project?

Honestly, it's the same old trick: low barrier ≠ low risk. I've learned to be smarter.

Just want to ask, where does the 25% annualized return come from? Is it from dumping?

Don't fool me—participating is just betting they won't run away.

I've seen many of these "simple models," and in the end, they all lose big.

Stable? Stable what—do they even drop steadily? Haha.

I don't understand complex architectures, and I definitely don't want to touch simple projects.

MoneyBurnerSociety · Answer

25% annualized return? I just want to ask where this yield is coming from...

---

Another story of "low threshold, high return," this time with a different skin.

---

Is Blast comparable? I'll just watch quietly as Stable explains this story.

---

Honestly, simple participation itself is quite suspicious; the simpler the thing, the more expensive it tends to be.

---

Not needing complex mechanisms makes me even more anxious, feeling like I'm just waiting for the knife to cut the leek.

---

This logic is the same as some financial products back in the day; stable returns are just the prelude to a scam.

---

25% APY sounds good, but I bet five bucks I'll end up losing big.

---

Is comparing FDV to Blast enough to explain the issue? Wake up, everyone.

ConsensusBot · Answer

25% annualized return sounds quite tempting, but I usually have to question these "passive income" schemes...

Speaking of Blast, it's interesting that it's positioned similarly, but is the ecosystem really as deep?

Low participation threshold is indeed great, but I'm worried about hidden costs down the line.

The biggest concern with these kinds of projects is the sustainability of returns. Has anyone calculated the real situation?

If there's profit without fuss, either I haven't understood the logic, or there really is something there.

MidsommarWallet · Answer

25% annualized? Sounds great... but I feel like something's off with this logic.

Stable is just an air project disguised as a yield project; I can't see any similarities with Blast.

Being simple and straightforward often leads to problems, understand?

If you don't tinker, you can earn passively—does such a good thing really exist?

Let's wait and see, let the bullets fly for a while.

APY so high should have exploded by now; it's still bouncing around... something's wrong.

Low entry cost? But that means high risk cost.

Feels like this is another "easy to learn but hard to master" trap game.

25%? I'm more concerned about when it will zero out.

Stable income sounds like another way of saying stable losses.

WhaleWatcher · Answer

25% APY sounds good, but I still have some doubts about how long this "passive income" model can last.

---

Comparing to Blast's FDV doesn't mean much; the key is whether there will be a dump later. Even with high returns, bankruptcy is still possible.

---

Honestly, I tend to be cautious with projects that don't require complex operations. Simpler things often have bigger problems.

---

Hmm... a low participation threshold itself is a signal. Why would a good project pander so much to newcomers?

---

A 25% annualized rate sounds like a ceiling. Such promises are too straightforward and actually make people uneasy.

---

I just want to ask, where does this money come from? Is it sustainable? Or is it just a short-term harvesting scheme?

---

The design of the yield center is indeed worry-free, but who will take over a business that is so easy to manage...?

---

The logic of Stable sounds comfortable, but the lack of ecosystem narrative is really concerning to me.

quietly_staking · Answer

25% APY sounds pretty comfortable, but why do I feel like I've heard this logic in other projects before?

---

Being this straightforward actually seems a bit suspicious... Usually, the simpler the thing, the deeper the trap.

---

Not messing around is actually an advantage? Then where does the yield come from?

---

Comparing to Blast, what does that tell us? Do you all still remember how Blast is doing now?

---

No matter how nicely it's said, it's still that same set of ideas. Money has to come from somewhere.

---

The combination of low-cost understanding and high returns, I've learned not to trust it.

---

When it comes to stable returns, it still depends on whether the hidden risks are clearly written out.