The USD1 line can actually be viewed separately; otherwise, it's easy to get confused.

USD1 itself is a stablecoin, and collateralization and custody determine whether it's "safe"; WLFI is an incentive token, which determines whether it's "profitable."
The two are related, but not the same thing.
Recently, the main reason for the discussion is that the WLFI governance proposal passed: 62.28 billion locked + 4.5 billion burned.
The biggest issue before was "not knowing when it would unlock," but now there's a timetable: the team and institutional parts are basically locked for 2 years + a gradual release over the next 4-5 years.
In other words, the biggest uncertainty has been removed.
The market's reaction is actually simple: not because something new of value appeared suddenly, but because a risk point was eliminated. But from another perspective, this is a positive for WLFI; for USD1, it's just "an emotional boost," not the core logic.
Looking at another aspect: USD1's subsidies are still ongoing, and the 4th round has also started, still using the old method—using WLFI as a subsidy to gain market share.
This approach has been running for several months now; essentially, it's about using money to scale up.
So at this stage, it's pretty clear:
USD1 = stability + subsidy consumption
WLFI = watching release + market expectations
Don't assume WLFI will rise just because USD1 is stable;
And don't think USD1 has a problem just because WLFI fluctuates.
Viewing these two separately makes it even simpler.