How to use the Yield Comparison
Yield Comparison is an educational XRPAuthority utility for placing modeled lending, vault, and liquidity outcomes beside the risks and assumptions that produce them. It changes demonstration state only, so it cannot sign, submit, or settle a real XRP Ledger transaction. The page keeps inputs, result, data mode, and safety boundary together so the output can be checked instead of accepted as an unexplained score or promise.
The comparison normalizes selected scenario inputs while keeping return sources and risk dimensions visible for each simulated strategy. The required input is strategy amounts, modeled rates, duration, fees, and the risk assumptions shown. The primary output is side-by-side educational outcomes rather than a ranked recommendation. Defaults are examples for learning; replace them with a documented scenario and preserve the units whenever the result informs later research or planning.
What problem does this tool solve?
Annualized percentages from different products are not directly comparable when duration, compounding, fees, liquidity, credit, and issuer exposure differ. This tool solves the narrower analytical problem by naming each important input, showing the transformation, and keeping the output next to its assumptions. It does not claim to solve custody, compliance, tax, market execution, security, or business-process questions that sit outside the model.
Why people use it
Users compare modeled yields to discover hidden assumptions, avoid mistaking XRP for a staking asset, and select which structure deserves deeper research. Read the intermediate values before the headline result and change one assumption at a time. Compare a reasonable baseline with at least one adverse case, record the observation date when market or network values are involved, and follow the related research links when a field or risk is unfamiliar.
Step-by-step instructions
- 01
Choose strategies that use comparable starting capital and duration, then identify whether return comes from fees, credit, or another activity.
- 02
Enter modeled rates and costs from the same scenario date rather than combining unrelated promotional figures.
- 03
Compare gross and net outcomes alongside credit, liquidity, issuer, and protocol risk instead of ranking by percentage alone.
- 04
Run a lower-rate and adverse-liquidity case, and document why any strategy was excluded from the comparison.