Flying Tulip
Workspaces

Protocol workspace

Risk

Protocol safeguards, plus the reasons first-party and external figures differ.

First-party vs DefiLlama

Cross-source discrepancies

Connected source
Same-quantity comparison. Each row compares two definitions; rows are not a historical sequence and differences are not automatically errors.
QuantityFlying TulipDefiLlamaAbsolute gapWhy it differs
Application fees$45.2KFlying Tulip — application fees (lifetime)$4.01MDefiLlama — fees (all time)$3.97MDefiLlama counts PUT-vault strategy yield as "fees"; Flying Tulip counts application fees only. Both are correct under their own definition — they are answers to different questions, and the gap is roughly the size of the yield the vault has earned.
ftUSD supply$4.29MFlying Tulip — ftUSD supply (Sonic + Ethereum)$3.91MDefiLlama — ftUSD circulating (USD)$376.0KWe cover Ethereum and Sonic; DefiLlama indexes Ethereum only, so the gap is missing coverage on their side rather than an error on either. The comparison also values one ftUSD at the protocol’s $1.00 accounting price in order to compare a token count with a USD figure — an assumption, and the reason the market peg is tracked separately.
Lending TVL$12.14MFlying Tulip — total supplied to lending$11.21MDefiLlama — protocol TVL$937.7KDefiLlama treats borrowed value differently from the way we report supplied capital, so the two figures do not — and should not — match. It is a netting difference, not a discrepancy in the underlying capital.
Stale · 11h ago·Flying Tulip API · /fees/application, DefiLlama · Flying Tulip fees··
Source, methodology and coverage
Observed at2026-07-17 00:00:00 UTC
Classcalculated — Derived from observed values by a documented formula.
MethodologyThe gap between the fees Flying Tulip reports and the fees DefiLlama reports for the same protocol. The gap is large and it is NOT an error: DefiLlama counts PUT-vault strategy yield as fees, Flying Tulip counts only application fees. Both numbers are right; they are answers to different questions. fixture observed 2026-07-13: $42,993.54 first-party application fees against $3.99M DefiLlama fees — roughly a 93× gap, entirely explained by definition. Rendered as a dumbbell (signature visualization D) with both definitions written out. It is never auto-labeled an error, never "reconciled", and neither side is corrected into the other. This is the metric that most justifies FT Pulse existing: an aggregator number and a first-party number disagree by two orders of magnitude, and nobody else explains why. No threshold. A stable, well-understood definitional gap is not an alert condition; alerting on it would train operators to ignore it. Full methodology
SourceFlying Tulip API · /fees/application — First-party application-fee totals and product, chain and fee-type composition. Collection contract is enabled on a cadence of 15 minutes.
SourceDefiLlama · Flying Tulip fees — External fee comparison; methodology and time coverage can differ from first-party application fees. Collection contract is enabled on a cadence of 1 hour.

Comparison data: DefiLlama — https://defillama.com

Why these numbers differ

Methodology notes

Connected source

A difference between two sources is not automatically an error, and none of these is labelled one. Neither side is corrected into the other, and the two are never averaged — an average of two different questions answers neither.

Application fees

DefiLlama counts PUT-vault strategy yield as "fees"; Flying Tulip counts application fees only. Both are correct under their own definition — they are answers to different questions, and the gap is roughly the size of the yield the vault has earned.

Flying Tulip — application fees (lifetime): Fees users paid to use the products. Excludes strategy yield. (ft.fees.application.v1)Current · 44m ago

DefiLlama — fees (all time): Counts PUT-vault strategy yield as fees, in addition to application fees. (llama.fees.v1)Current · 5m ago

ftUSD supply

We cover Ethereum and Sonic; DefiLlama indexes Ethereum only, so the gap is missing coverage on their side rather than an error on either. The comparison also values one ftUSD at the protocol’s $1.00 accounting price in order to compare a token count with a USD figure — an assumption, and the reason the market peg is tracked separately.

Flying Tulip — ftUSD supply (Sonic + Ethereum): Per-chain token supply, summed, and valued at the protocol’s $1.00 accounting price so it can be compared with a USD figure at all. (ft.status.ftusd.dashboard.v1)Current · 5m ago

DefiLlama — ftUSD circulating (USD): Ethereum only since 2026-07-09. Sonic is not indexed. (llama.stablecoin.v1)Current · 11h ago

Lending TVL

DefiLlama treats borrowed value differently from the way we report supplied capital, so the two figures do not — and should not — match. It is a netting difference, not a discrepancy in the underlying capital.

Flying Tulip — total supplied to lending: Everything lenders have deposited. (ft.mm.lend.v1)Stale · 1h ago

DefiLlama — protocol TVL: Netting and borrowed-value treatment differ from ours. (llama.protocol.v1)Current · 47m ago

Across every product

Circuit breakers

Connected source

PUT circuit breaker

capital-put
  • ArmedEthereumCurrent · 5m ago

Whether the PUT vault's circuit breaker is currently armed and limiting how fast capital can leave.

ftUSD circuit breaker

ftusd
  • ArmedEthereumCurrent · 5m ago
  • ArmedSonicCurrent · 5m ago

Whether ftUSD's circuit breaker is armed on this chain, capping how much can be withdrawn in a window.

ftUSD withdrawals paused

ftusd
  • Withdrawals runningEthereumCurrent · 5m ago
  • Withdrawals runningSonicCurrent · 5m ago

Whether ftUSD withdrawals are currently paused on this chain. If this is true, holders cannot redeem right now.

Withdrawable now (breaker limit)

lending
  • Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · WBTCCurrent · 47m ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · FTCurrent · 51m ago
  • No withdrawal capacityEthereum · wstETHCurrent · 56m ago
  • Last observed: Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · USDCStale · 1h ago
  • Last observed: Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · WETHStale · 1h ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · USDTCurrent · 56m ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableEthereum · ftUSDCurrent · 51m ago
  • Last observed: Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · USSDStale · 1h ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · wSCurrent · 41m ago
  • Last observed: Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · WBTCStale · 1h ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · USDCCurrent · 47m ago
  • Last observed: Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · WETHStale · 1h ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · FTCurrent · 41m ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · stSCurrent · 36m ago
  • Withdrawal capacity availableSonic · ftUSDCurrent · 36m ago

How much of an asset the circuit breaker will actually let you withdraw right now, in dollars. This is the number that matters when you want to exit — it can be well below the headline available liquidity.

At least one breaker state is stale or unavailable. Non-current rows describe the last validated observation and must not be read as the live withdrawal state.

Armed is not tripped. A breaker being active means the control exists and is watching — it is the healthy state. The state that actually stops redemptions is paused, and it is the only one rendered as critical.