Who is creating the bubble? DefiLlama confronts Figure, $12 billion RWA data in doubt

Original | Odaily

Author | Ethan

Original Title: 12 Billion Dollars of False Prosperity? The Dispute Between Figure and DefiLlama Over "RWA Data Fabrication"

In the DeFi world, TVL is a key metric—it is both a symbol of a protocol's strength and a barometer of user trust. However, a controversy over the alleged fabrication of metrics for 12 billion dollars in RWA assets has quickly torn apart user trust.

On September 10, Figure co-founder Mike Cagney was the first to strike on X, publicly accusing the on-chain data platform DefiLlama of refusing to display its RWA TVL simply because of "insufficient social media followers," and questioning the fairness of its "decentralization standards."

A few days later, DefiLlama co-founder 0xngmi published a long article, "The Problem in RWA Metrics," in response, revealing point by point the data anomalies behind Figure's claimed 12 billion dollar scale, directly pointing out that its on-chain data is unverifiable, assets lack real transfer paths, and even suggesting possible due diligence evasion.

Thus, a full-scale battle for trust over "on-chain verifiability" versus "off-chain mapping logic" erupted.

Event Timeline: Figure Initiates, DefiLlama Responds Firmly

The trigger for this storm came from a tweet by Figure co-founder Mike Cagney.

On September 10, he announced on X that Figure's Home Equity Line of Credit (HELOCs) product had successfully landed on CoinGecko, but at the same time accused DefiLlama of refusing to display Figure's 13 billion dollars TVL on the Provenance chain. He directly targeted DefiLlama's "review logic," even bluntly stating that the other party rejected the listing due to "insufficient X followers." (Odaily note: Here Mike Cagney mentions 13 billion dollars, which is inconsistent with the 12 billion cited by 0xngmi in the response below.)

About an hour later, Provenance Blockchain CEO Anthony Moro (who, judging from the context, seemed to intervene without full knowledge of the background) commented under the same post, expressing strong distrust of the industry data platform DefiLlama:

Subsequently, Figure co-founder Mike Cagney added that he understood the development costs of integrating a new L1, but also clarified that CoinGecko and DefiLlama had never asked Figure for any fees or tokens, dispelling the implication of "pay-to-list."

On September 12, Artemis L1 dashboard co-founder and CEO Jon Ma (also seemingly without fully understanding the details of the dispute) publicly extended an olive branch.

During this period, public opinion was clearly leaning towards Figure—many onlookers pointed fingers at DefiLlama's "credibility and neutrality."

It wasn't until September 13, when DefiLlama co-founder 0xngmi published the long article "The Problem in RWA Metrics," systematically disclosing their due diligence findings and four points of doubt, that the narrative began to shift; shortly after, opinion leaders like ZachXBT reposted in support, emphasizing that "these metrics are not 100% verifiable on-chain," and DefiLlama's stance gained broader support.

DefiLlama's Investigation Results: Data Doesn't Match

In the long article "The Problem in RWA Metrics," 0xngmi published the DefiLlama team's due diligence results on Figure, listing several anomalies point by point:

On-chain asset scale seriously inconsistent with claimed scale

Figure claims its on-chain issued RWA scale reaches 12 billion dollars, but the actual verifiable on-chain assets are only about 5 million dollars in BTC and 4 million dollars in ETH. Among them, BTC's 24-hour trading volume is only 2,000 dollars.

Insufficient stablecoin supply

Figure's self-issued stablecoin YLDS has a total supply of only 20 million, and theoretically all RWA transactions should be based on this, but the supply is far from enough to support a 12 billion dollar transaction scale.

Suspicious asset transfer patterns

Most RWA asset transfer transactions are not initiated by the actual asset holders, but operated through other accounts. Many addresses themselves have almost no on-chain interactions, suspected to be just database mirrors.

Lack of on-chain payment traces

The vast majority of Figure's loan processes are still completed in fiat currency, and there are almost no corresponding payment and repayment records on-chain.

0xngmi added: "We are not sure how Figure's 12 billion dollar asset scale is actually transacted. Most holders do not seem to use their own keys to transfer these assets—are they just mapping their internal database onto the chain?"

Community Response: Overwhelming Support for DefiLlama

As the controversy spread, community opinion overwhelmingly supported DefiLlama, but during this process, some different perspectives also emerged.

ZachXBT (on-chain detective):

Bluntly stated that Figure's actions amounted to "blatant pressure," and clearly pointed out: "No, your company is trying to use metrics that are not 100% verifiable on-chain to publicly pressure proven honest participants like DefiLlama."

Conor Grogan (Coinbase board member):

Instead, he targeted those who, before the dispute was clarified, were lobbied by Figure and privately questioned DefiLlama. He wrote: "I received a lot of private contacts from people at large crypto institutions and venture capital firms about defillama and our partners. Every one of these people needs to be called out in person and asked how they can work in this industry if they can't even verify things themselves."

Conor's remarks echoed the sentiments of many: if even basic on-chain verification cannot be independently performed, then the credibility of these institutions in the RWA and DeFi sectors will be greatly diminished.

Ian Kane (Head of Partnerships at Midnight Network):

Proposed a more technical suggestion, believing that DefiLlama could add a new metric of "active TVL" in addition to existing TVL tracking, to show the actual transfer speed of RWA over a certain period. He gave an example: "Example: Two DApps each mint 100 billions of dollars in TVL (totaling 200 billions). DApp 1 has 100 billions just sitting there, with maybe only 2% of funds flowing, generating 2 billions in active locked value, while DApp 2 has 30% of funds flowing, generating 30 billions in active locked value (15 times that of DApp 1)."

In his view, such a dimension can show the total scale while also avoiding "stagnant or performative TVL."

Meanwhile, ZachXBT also noticed that Figure co-founder Mike Cagney kept reposting some seemingly AI-generated "supportive comments," and publicly pointed this out, further fueling resentment toward Figure's manipulation of public opinion.

Conclusion: The Cost of Trust Is Just Beginning to Show

The dispute between Figure and DefiLlama may appear to be a ranking storm, but in fact it strikes at the core weakness of the RWA sector—what exactly counts as "on-chain assets."

The core contradiction of this controversy is actually on-chain fundamentalism vs. off-chain mapping logic.

• DefiLlama's insistence: Only count TVL that can be verified on-chain, adhere to open-source adapter logic, and refuse to accept asset data that does not meet transparency requirements.

• Figure's model: Assets may actually exist, but the business logic relies more on traditional financial systems, with the on-chain part merely serving as a database echo. In other words, users cannot use on-chain transactions to prove asset flows, which conflicts with the "verifiability" standard of DeFi natives.

The so-called 12 billion dollars, if it cannot be verified on-chain, is equivalent to zero.

In an industry where transparency and verifiability are the bottom line, any attempt to bypass on-chain verification and use database numbers to impersonate on-chain TVL will ultimately backfire on user and market trust.

This controversy may be just the beginning. In the future, as more RWA protocols emerge, similar problems will continue to arise. The industry urgently needs clear and unified verification standards, otherwise "virtual TVL" will continue to inflate and become the next landmine to shatter trust.