3F vs Yield Basis: Which Ethereum strategy fits? (2026)

The main difference is what each protocol lets you do. 3F targets users who want leveraged exposure to tokenized real-world assets. Its vaults use Morpho markets, and the protocol automates buying an asset, posting it as collateral, and borrowing stablecoins. Stablecoin lenders can supply USDC or USDT to those markets. The app is in private beta, which limits access.

Yield Basis is built for liquidity providers. It aims to reduce impermanent loss while giving LPs direct spot exposure and yield, starting with Bitcoin. It describes that yield as arising from market activity and volatility rather than relying only on emissions. Yield Basis is active and has about $103.9 million in TVL, compared with about $40.4 million for 3F. The higher TVL does not make it a substitute for 3F: the protocols serve different strategies.

3F’s defining feature is automated leverage on tokenized RWAs. The project describes leverage of up to 17x, but that is a maximum, not a typical position or a promise of returns. High leverage can make a position vulnerable to quick liquidation if asset prices or liquidity move against it. Its vaults depend on Morpho markets, along with flash loans, bridge facilitators, and liquidators.

Yield Basis instead centers on liquidity provision, with an aim to limit impermanent loss and provide spot exposure to an asset such as Bitcoin while earning yield. The design is still complex and carries risks beyond those of a plain AMM position. Its yield figures and risk parameters are not published here. Pick 3F if you specifically want an automated leveraged RWA position and can access the beta; consider Yield Basis if your goal is Bitcoin-focused liquidity provision. Neither approach should be treated as low-risk.

Neither protocol publishes a complete fee schedule in the information available here. 3F does not state its fees, Morpho borrow rates, or liquidation penalties on its homepage. Its displayed yield and leverage maximums are not a substitute for knowing the costs of borrowing or the terms that apply if a position is liquidated. Check its documentation or app if you obtain beta access.

Yield Basis does not publish its trading fees, performance fees, protocol share of yield, or yield figures here. For both protocols, Ethereum gas costs also apply to onchain transactions. Before depositing, confirm the current charges, withdrawal conditions, and—where relevant—borrow and liquidation terms in the project’s documentation and interface. If those details are unavailable or unclear to you, do not assume fees are zero or estimate returns without them.

Both protocols involve smart-contract and market risk, but their risk sources differ. 3F’s positions depend on Morpho markets, tokenized asset issuers and liquidity, price oracles, bridge facilitators, and liquidators. Its high-leverage positions can be liquidated quickly. The project links to an audits page and a bug bounty, but no audits are listed here; check the project’s audit resources for contract coverage and findings before considering a deposit.

Yield Basis has two audits listed, but the auditors, scope, and findings are not public here. An audit does not eliminate smart-contract or market risk, and its leveraged liquidity design is complex. Both protocols have relatively short track records: Yield Basis launched in September 2025, while 3F is new and in private beta. Neither publishes fees and full risk parameters here. Review the current documentation, understand how withdrawals and losses work, and only deposit funds you can afford to lose.

Choose 3F if your intended strategy is leveraged exposure to tokenized real-world assets, you understand liquidation risk, and you can obtain beta access. It also has a role for stablecoin lenders supplying capital to the Morpho markets. Its limited access, unpublished fees and borrow terms, and multiple dependencies make it a poor fit for someone who wants a straightforward, fully accessible product.

Choose Yield Basis if you want to provide liquidity with a Bitcoin-first design that aims to address impermanent loss while maintaining spot exposure. It has more TVL and two audits listed, but its fee schedule, yield figures, and audit details are not public here, and its design remains complex. If you are choosing between them only by TVL or audit count, that is not enough: first compare the strategy, downside mechanics, access, and terms you can verify.