Yield here isn’t a single pool number, it’s a routing policy. Assets stay in self-custody while strategies rotate where the risk/reward makes sense, then settle back to you. For XRP, that means XRPL custody with execution in Flare; for ETH/USDC, it means cross-chain deployments without you juggling wallets. @moremarketsxyz ❯ XRP → FXRP on Flare: payouts sourced from Flare-native venues and, as integrations like Firelight phase in, fee-driven rewards on top of incentives ❯ ETH / BTC / USD: “Essential Trio” accounts optimize across partner venues; launch guidance called out baseline ranges (e.g., ETH ~7%, BTC ~4%, USD ~10%) with extra upside from ecosystem rewards ❯ Control model: custody stays native; NEAR Chain Signatures + intents coordinate execution off-chain while keeping vault control ❯ Transparency: audited vault infra + DeFiLlama tracking for TVL and flows How I looked: read the NEAR Chain Signatures write-up (custody vs. execution split), Flare’s XRP Earn post (why XRPFi fits), Essential Trio launch notes (range guidance + incentives), and checked DeFiLlama to sanity-check traction. My read: the “yield” is diversified sources (lending, DEX fees, incentives; soon coverage fees via Firelight), wrapped in a self-custody envelope. That’s why it held up through volatility rotation > chasing a single APR. Dev note: ship a per-account “source of yield” pane (venue mix + % share) so users can verify what’s driving returns. Tagging STBL here since they’ve been loud about self-custody yield done right