BitFi Basis

Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.

REJECTED ON TOTAL ELIGIBILITY OPACITY. BitFi issues bfBTC and bfUSD, yield-bearing tokens backed by delta-neutral basis trading — the same funding-rate and basis-spread risk model this registry has already evaluated for Ethena USDe and Solstice, both researched elsewhere in this registry. No legal entity name, incorporation jurisdiction, or general Terms of Service could be found anywhere for the core yield product — every standard terms path on both the product and docs domains returned not-found errors. The only eligibility disclosure this review located applies to a separate 2026 token sale, which explicitly excludes United States participants; whether that same exclusion applies to the yield product itself could not be confirmed either way. Custody runs through the identical Ceffu MirrorX chain already found in this registry’s rejected BounceBit CeDeFi Yield entry, with hedging positions ultimately sitting on Binance.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• A named legal entity, incorporation jurisdiction, and general Terms of Service for the yield product are published
• Eligibility for this registry’s target client population is affirmatively confirmed, not inferred from an absence of stated restriction
• Named hedging venues beyond Binance and admin multisig composition are disclosed
• Explicit risk disclosure addressing sustained negative-funding-rate stress periods is published

The research file

Mechanism

Users stake BTC or USDT/USDC to mint bfBTC or bfUSD. bfUSD can be further staked into two paired ERC-4626 vaults, Horizon (lower-risk, delta-neutral, capped at 100M shares) and Pulsar (higher-yield, drawdown-permitting, capped at 2M shares), structured so Horizon revenue subsidizes Pulsar and Pulsar losses are absorbed before Horizon is touched. Yield is explicitly disclosed as delta-neutral basis trading — matching long Bitcoin-correlated spot positions against short derivative positions — funded by perpetual funding rates and spot/derivative basis spreads, the identical risk model this registry has already priced into its Ethena and Solstice evaluations.

No disclosed legal entity for the yield product

Every standard terms-of-service path on both www.bitfi.one and app.bitfi.one returns a not-found error; no legal entity name, incorporation jurisdiction, or governing law was found in any source this review could access. Contact information for the product runs through a different domain, bitfi.org, than the product site itself, bitfi.one — a minor but real inconsistency. This is a materially weaker disclosure posture than every comparable basis-trading product already reviewed in this registry, each of which names an entity and a jurisdiction even where this registry ultimately rejects them on other grounds.

The eligibility gap

The only eligibility disclosure this review located is scoped to BitFi’s June 2026 BFI token public sale, which explicitly and by name excludes United States participants alongside the UK, mainland China, and Russia. No comparable disclosure exists for the core bfBTC/bfUSD yield product’s eligibility, because no general terms of service for that product could be located at all. Absence of a stated restriction is not the same as an affirmative, sourced confirmation of access, and this registry does not treat an unconfirmed eligibility state as permissive.

Custody and comparison to BounceBit

Custody runs through Ceffu, the Binance-affiliated institutional custodian, via its MirrorX off-exchange settlement system — the same custody chain already found in this registry’s rejected BounceBit CeDeFi Yield entry, with hedging positions ultimately mirrored to Binance. BitFi’s own risk-management materials claim diversification across ”multiple exchanges and custodians” but name no additional venues, and no admin multisig composition or signer identities are disclosed anywhere. bfUSD contract addresses are stated to be upgradeable ”as the protocol evolves,” with no accompanying disclosure of who controls that upgrade authority.

Redemption, audits, and decision

bfUSD redeems to USDT through a standard 3-epoch-wait, no-fee path or an instant path carrying a 0.5% fee and a quota that can be exhausted; bfBTC redeems similarly for native or wrapped BTC. No disclosure addresses what happens to redemption throughput or vault ratios during a sustained negative-funding-rate stress period, unlike Solstice and Ethena, both of which carry explicit risk language on this point. DefiLlama’s audit field shows zero for this entry, but BitFi’s own documentation discloses two SlowMist audit reports, one each for bfBTC and bfUSD — a case where DefiLlama’s badge understates real coverage, though it does not resolve the entity and eligibility gaps above, which remain this rejection’s basis.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• BitFi documentation — BitFi strategies and delta-neutral mechanism · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: delta-neutral basis-trading mechanism, Horizon and Pulsar vault structure
• BitFi documentation — Ceffu MirrorX custody · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: custody and off-exchange settlement chain
• BitFi documentation — public sale restricted countries · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: token-sale-scoped US exclusion, not confirmed for the yield product
• BitFi documentation — audit reports · primary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: SlowMist audits for bfBTC and bfUSD
• DefiLlama — BitFi Basis protocol data · secondary · accessed 2026-08-19
  Supports: chain deployment list, zero audits field

Inherited controls

The verdict above grades the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The least safe layer sets the position’s grade, and the position table names which one that is.