BitFi Basis

This registry rejects BitFi Basis because the product does not disclose who may use it. BitFi issues bfBTC and bfUSD, yield-bearing tokens backed by delta-neutral basis trading. This is the same funding-rate and basis-spread risk model that this registry has already evaluated for Ethena USDe and Solstice, both researched elsewhere in this registry. This review could find no legal entity name, incorporation jurisdiction, or general Terms of Service 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 found by this review applies to a separate 2026 token sale and explicitly excludes United States participants. This review could not confirm whether the same exclusion applies to the yield product itself. Custody uses the identical Ceffu MirrorX chain already found in this registry’s rejected BounceBit CeDeFi Yield entry, with hedging positions ultimately sitting on Binance.

Review triggers: events that reopen the 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

Confirmed 2026-09-25: 37 days quiet, TVL $237M, no open item. Holds to 2027-09-26 while the watch stays quiet.

The research file

Mechanism

Users stake BTC or USDT/USDC to mint bfBTC or bfUSD. They can further stake bfUSD into two paired ERC-4626 vaults: Horizon, which is lower-risk, delta-neutral, and capped at 100M shares, and Pulsar, which offers higher yield, permits drawdowns, and is capped at 2M shares. The structure uses Horizon revenue to subsidize Pulsar, while Pulsar absorbs losses before Horizon is touched. The disclosed yield source is delta-neutral basis trading. It matches long Bitcoin-correlated spot positions against short derivative positions and earns perpetual funding rates and spot/derivative basis spreads. This is 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. This review found no legal entity name, incorporation jurisdiction, or governing law in any source it could access. The product’s contact information uses bitfi.org, a different domain from the product site, bitfi.one. That is a minor but real inconsistency. BitFi discloses materially less than every comparable basis-trading product already reviewed in this registry. Each comparable product names an entity and a jurisdiction, even when this registry ultimately rejects it on other grounds.

The eligibility gap

The only eligibility disclosure this review found applies to BitFi’s June 2026 BFI token public sale. It explicitly excludes participants from the United States, the UK, mainland China, and Russia. No comparable disclosure covers eligibility for the core bfBTC/bfUSD yield product because this review could not find any general terms of service for that product. The lack of a stated restriction is not the same as a clear, sourced confirmation of access. This registry does not treat unconfirmed eligibility as permission to use the product.

Custody and comparison to BounceBit

Custody runs through Ceffu, the Binance-affiliated institutional custodian, using its MirrorX off-exchange settlement system. This is 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 other venues. BitFi also discloses no admin multisig composition or signer identities anywhere. Its materials state that bfUSD contract addresses can be upgraded “as the protocol evolves,” but do not say who controls that upgrade authority.

Redemption, audits, and decision

bfUSD redeems to USDT through either a standard path with a 3-epoch wait and no fee or an instant path with a 0.5% fee and a quota that can run out. bfBTC similarly redeems for native or wrapped BTC. No disclosure explains what happens to redemption throughput or vault ratios during a sustained period of negative funding rates. Solstice and Ethena both provide 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. DefiLlama’s badge therefore understates the real coverage. Those audits do not resolve the entity and eligibility gaps above, which remain the basis for this rejection.

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 research above describes the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The layer with the most administrative power sets the position’s effective control; that describes control, not quality or suitability.