Advancing
Loading
Contract
1EaGq2PtdsxhZicYsrMXcVMLXMdyqpbUNQJjfZBpump
Advancing
LoadingSeam Map
A seam is one place capital is currently earning. The map shows all of them at once, sized by what they hold and separated by the source of the money, because a rate without a payer attached is a number with no lifespan.
Bar length is measured against the highest rate on this map that is not counterparty, and that scale holds whichever filter and sort are on. The counterparty vault runs past the end of it, so its bar is drawn clipped and the multiple it reaches is written on its own row, rather than every fee seam being flattened into a sliver to fit one outlier.
Bar length is measured against the highest rate on this map that is not counterparty, Orca SOL-cbBTC at 21.91%. That scale holds whichever filter and sort are on. One seam runs past the end of it and is drawn clipped, with the multiple written on its row.
Concentrated liquidity, fees paid by swappers
21.91%
7 day window / 4.58M deep
Concentrated liquidity, fees paid by swappers
15.46%
7 day window / 6.32M deep
Concentrated liquidity, fees paid by swappers
11.01%
7 day window / 930K deep
Concentrated liquidity, fees paid by swappers
6.67%
7 day window / 214K deep
Two BTC representations against each other, low divergence
4.35%
7 day window / 1.01M deep
Concentrated liquidity, fees paid by swappers
1.54%
7 day window / 2.01M deep
Managed liquidity position, fees paid by swappers
1.23%
7 day window / 2.01M deep
Borrow interest, single sided, no divergence exposure
0.856%
30 day window / 295K deep
Vault takes the other side of leveraged traders
174.5%
30 day window / 1.71M deep
Bar clipped at the end of the scale. This rate is 8.0 times the 21.91% it is measured against
This one is on the list so it can be labelled, not so it can be recommended. The rate is funded by leveraged traders losing money, and it reverses when they stop.
Read from the pool index, cross-checked against the liquidity venue and the lending venue
GMTrade BTC-USDC vault carries the largest figure in the whole survey: 214.828 percent at the snapshot, listed above at a ninety day median of 174.458 percent against 1.71M dollars. It stays on the map, and none of it is allocated.
Removing it would turn a survey into a filtered list still presented as a survey. The figure is real and somebody is quoting it somewhere; the useful thing is to put it beside the fee rates and name the difference.
Not a claim that the other two kinds are secure. A claim about who pays: a fee comes from someone using a venue, this comes from the trader on the other side losing, and it reverses when they win. Second reason: It publishes no endpoint anyone outside can read, so its rate cannot be cross-checked the way every other figure here is.
A ceiling in the vault program, not a preference on this page. An allocation that would carry a chamber past its ceiling fails with CounterpartyAllocationExceeded rather than landing and being reported afterwards.
| Chamber | Ceiling | What that permits |
|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 0 bps | Not one basis point. The chain rejects the allocation. |
| Balanced | 0 bps | Not one basis point. The chain rejects the allocation. |
| Forward | 3000 bps | Up to 30 percent of the chamber, carrying its own colour and label. |
A ceiling can only be raised by upgrading the program. That friction is deliberate. A rule that can be relaxed by editing a configuration value is a preference wearing the clothes of a rule.
A seam map is only worth reading against the market it covers. This one covers almost all of it, and the reason the list fits on a screen is that most bitcoin on this chain is not earning anything at all.
420M
Across every wrapped and bridged form of it, at the snapshot.
74.6%
About 313 million dollars sitting in wallets rather than in anything that pays.
75.36M
Spread over 32 reserves, and almost none of it borrowed.
10,777
Dollars, and not per position. That is the whole interest pool, shared by every bitcoin supplier on the chain.
The pool index carries 94 bitcoin related pools on this chain holding 99.38M dollars between them, split 32 lending reserves against 62 liquidity pools. The lending side is the larger half by size and the smaller half by return, which is the whole shape of this market in one sentence.
One limit on this map, stated rather than buried: the aggregate it reads does not collect Meteora at all, so the liquidity total above understates the real figure by roughly 24.5 percent. Treat it as a floor. A map that hides its own blind spot is worse than one that names it.
Each one exists because of something specific that went wrong in the data, not as a statement of principle.
The cbBTC-USDC history contains a day reading 74,187 percent, an artefact of a moment when the pool was nearly empty. The seven day figure or the ninety day median is used instead.
The upstream field is null for every one of these pools. Leaving the column blank is honest; filling it with a guess is not.
Putting a 214 percent vault funded by trader losses beside a 15 percent fee seam, in the same shade, is a lie told with a stylesheet.
When a cached aggregate and a venue's own endpoint disagree, one of them is stale, and neither should be shown as settled.
Drift BTC-PERP held 250 BTC of open interest through a week in which every write to it failed. Size is not proof of life.
Putting a price on an unissued point turns emissions into sustainable return with arithmetic.
This looks like an implementation detail until you notice that two different tokens on this chain both read WBTC. They are not versions of each other. One is wrapped once and one is wrapped twice, and a router that matched on the ticker would treat them as interchangeable.
3NZ9JMVBmGAqocybic2c7LQCJScmgsAZ6vQqTDzcqmJh
BTC -> BitGo -> Ethereum WBTC -> Wormhole Portal -> Solana
5XZw2LKTyrfvfiskJ78AMpackRjPcyCif1WhUsPDuVqQ
BTC -> BitGo -> Solana
The mint authority on the liquid one is BCD75RNBHrJJpW4dXVagL5mPjzRLnVZq4YirJdjEYMV7. Deriving an address from the bridge program and the seed mint_signer returns the same value at bump 254, and the bridge’s own metadata record for that mint decodes to origin chain 2 and the token 0x2260fac5e5542a773aa44fbcfedf7c193bc2c599. That is Ethereum WBTC. The bitcoin behind it never touched this chain.
Where it actually went
62.5%
Of that WBTC, 1,644.33 BTC sits inside a single perpetuals pool. That is why it shows up in lending with only 715K dollars supplied: it is not unused, it is already committed somewhere the seam map does not reach.
The failure the rule was written for
A retired representation still carries the plain symbol BTC on chain, still reports 16,149 units outstanding, and settles at a 99.96 percent discount. It also uses 6 decimals where every live representation uses 8, so a loop that reads the symbol mis-sizes the amount by a hundredfold before it mis-prices it.
A venue can report a healthy total and be dead. Nothing is listed here until it can show recent transactions that actually succeeded.
Funding last settled on 2026-04-01T18:00:00Z. Across 2026-08-08 to 2026-08-14 the market account took 200 transactions and every one of them failed. It still reports 250 BTC of open interest.
Excluded until a live perpetual market can be confirmed
104.6 percent supply rate against 10,927 dollars of supply. The rate is real and the capacity is not.
Below the size floor
5.48 million dollars supplied with nothing borrowed against it. A large reserve nobody uses pays zero by construction.
Zero borrow, so zero return