Borrowing USD1, a stablecoin supported by RWA, sounds indeed tempting. Backed by US Treasuries, low volatility, stable borrowing costs... but there's a catch: stability ≠ safety.

Many people make the same mistake. They see USD1's low volatility and feel reassured, only to fully collateralize their positions. Little do they know, the real risk isn't on the collateral side — it's on the lending side. For example, if you use USD1 as collateral to borrow BNB, and the market suddenly surges, causing BNB's price to skyrocket, your debt value balloons like a balloon, and your health factor collapses instantly. No matter how stable the collateral, it can't save you.

So, what's the right way to use it? There's only one core principle: assets must be matched.

The safest approach is to borrow stablecoins to arbitrage similar assets, or strictly control leverage ratios to keep LTV at very low levels. Only then can USD1's anti-volatility feature truly protect you. But once you involve non-stablecoin assets in borrowing, don't expect it to fully hedge risks — market volatility means there's no such thing as absolute "stability."

In plain terms, USD1 is suitable for institutional-level allocations seeking deterministic returns. Aggressive players aiming for excess returns through high leverage won't be able to play. Maintaining disciplined positions and low-risk mining is indeed feasible. But only if you truly stick to it.