Aave Founder: What is the Secret of the DeFi Lending Market?

marsbitPublished on 2026-02-10Last updated on 2026-02-10

Abstract

Chain-based lending, which began as an experimental concept around 2017, has evolved into a market exceeding $100 billion, primarily driven by stablecoin borrowing backed by crypto-native collateral like Ethereum and Bitcoin. This system enables liquidity release, leveraged strategies, and yield arbitrage. The key advantage of on-chain lending lies not in technological novelty but in its elimination of financial inefficiencies, offering lower costs (around 5% for stablecoins) compared to centralized crypto lenders (7-12%) due to open capital aggregation, transparency, and automation. On-chain lending is structurally due to permissionless markets that excel in capital pooling and risk pricing, fostering competition and innovation without intermediaries. This model reduces operational costs, replacing manual processes with code, and benefits both capital providers and borrowers. However, the current limitation is not a lack of capital but a shortage of diverse, borrowable collateral. The future of on-chain lending depends on integrating real-world economic value with crypto-native assets, moving beyond abstract financial strategies to serve broader adoption. Traditional lending remains expensive due to inefficiencies in loan origination, risk assessment, and servicing, where misaligned incentives and manual processes inflate costs. Decentralized finance can disrupt this by automating end-to-end operations, ensuring transparency, and reducing expenses. When on-chain lending ...

Author: Stani.eth

Compiled by: Ken, Chaincatcher

On-chain lending began around 2017 as a fringe experiment related to crypto assets. Today, it has grown into a market exceeding $100 billion, primarily driven by stablecoin lending, largely collateralized by crypto-native assets like Ethereum, Bitcoin, and their derivatives. Borrowers use it to release liquidity through long positions, execute leverage loops, and engage in yield arbitrage. The key is not creativity, but validation. The behavior over the past few years has shown that automated lending based on smart contracts had genuine demand and true product-market fit long before institutions began to take notice.

The crypto market remains volatile. Building a lending system on top of the most dynamic existing assets forces on-chain lending to immediately address risk management, liquidation, and capital efficiency issues, rather than hiding them behind policies or human discretion. Without crypto-native collateral, it would be impossible to see just how powerful fully automated on-chain lending can be. The key is not cryptocurrency as an asset class, but the cost structure transformation brought about by decentralized finance.

Why On-Chain Lending is Cheaper

On-chain lending is cheaper not because it's new technology, but because it eliminates layers of financial waste. Today, borrowers can access stablecoins on-chain at a cost of around 5%, while centralized crypto lending institutions charge interest rates of 7% to 12%, plus fees, service charges, and various surcharges. When conditions favor the borrower, choosing centralized lending is not only not conservative, it's irrational.

This cost advantage does not come from subsidies, but from capital aggregation in an open system.Permissionless markets are structurally superior to closed markets in pooling capital and pricing risk, because transparency, composability, and automation drive competition. Capital moves faster, idle liquidity is penalized, and inefficiencies are exposed in real-time. Innovation spreads immediately.

When new financial primitives like Ethena's USDe or Pendle emerge, they absorb liquidity from the entire ecosystem and expand the use of existing primitives like Aave, all without sales teams, reconciliation processes, or back-office departments. Code replaces management costs. This is not just an incremental improvement; it is a fundamentally different operating model. All cost structure advantages are passed on to capital allocators and, more importantly, to borrowers.

Every major shift in modern history has followed the same pattern. Heavy-asset systems become light-asset systems. Fixed costs become variable costs. Labor becomes software. Centralized scale replaces local duplication. Excess capacity is converted into dynamic utilization. Changes initially look bad. They serve non-core users (e.g., lending for cryptocurrency, not mainstream use cases), compete on price before quality improves, and don't look serious until they scale to a point where incumbents can't cope.

On-chain lending fits this pattern perfectly. Early users were mostly niche cryptocurrency holders. The user experience was poor. Wallets felt alien. Stablecoins didn't touch bank accounts. None of that mattered because the cost was lower, execution was faster, and access was global. As everything else improved, it became more accessible.

What Happens Next

During bear markets, demand falls, yields compress, revealing a more important dynamic. Capital in on-chain lending is always in competition. Liquidity does not stagnate due to quarterly committee decisions or balance sheet assumptions. It is constantly repriced in a transparent environment. Few financial systems are as relentless.

On-chain lending does not lack capital, it lacks collateral available for lending. Most on-chain lending today just recycles the same collateral for the same strategies. This is not a structural limitation, but a temporary one.

Cryptocurrency will continue to generate native assets, productive primitives, and on-chain economic activity, thereby expanding the scope of lending. Ethereum is maturing into a programmable economic resource. Bitcoin is solidifying its role as an economic energy store. Neither is a final state.

If on-chain lending is to reach billions of users, it must absorb real economic value, not just abstract financial concepts. The future lies in combining autonomous crypto-native assets with tokenized real-world rights and obligations, not to replicate traditional finance, but to operate it at an extremely low cost. This will be the catalyst for replacing the backend of old finance with decentralized finance.

What's Wrong with Lending

Lending is expensive today not because capital is scarce. Capital is abundant. Quality capital clears at 5% to 7%. Risk capital clears at 8% to 12%. Borrowers still pay high interest rates because everything surrounding capital is inefficient.

The loan origination process is bloated with customer acquisition costs and lagging credit models. Binary approvals cause quality borrowers to overpay, while subprime borrowers receive subsidies until they default. Servicing remains manual, compliance-heavy, and slow. Incentives are misaligned at every layer. Those who price risk rarely actually bear it. Brokers don't bear default risk. Loan originators sell exposure immediately. Everyone gets paid regardless of the outcome. The flaw in the feedback mechanism is the real cost of the loan.

Lending has not been disrupted because trust trumps user experience, regulation stifles innovation, and losses mask inefficiencies until they explode. When lending systems fail, the consequences are often catastrophic, reinforcing conservatism over progress. As a result, lending still looks like an industrial-era product clumsily grafted onto digital capital markets.

Breaking the Cost Structure

Unless loan origination, risk assessment, servicing, and capital allocation become fully software-native and on-chain, borrowers will continue to overpay, and lenders will continue to rationalize these costs. The solution is not more regulation or marginal UX improvements. It is breaking the cost structure. Automation replaces processes. Transparency replaces discretion. Certainty replaces reconciliation. This is the disruption decentralized finance can bring to lending.

When on-chain lending becomes demonstrably cheaper end-to-end than traditional lending, adoption is not a question, it is inevitable. Aave exists in this context, poised to serve as the foundational capital layer for a new financial backend, serving the entire lending landscape from fintech companies to institutional lenders to consumers.

Lending will become the most empowering financial product, simply because the cost structure of DeFi will allow fast-moving capital to flow into the applications that need it most. Abundant capital will create abundant opportunity.

Related Questions

QWhat is the core reason why on-chain lending is cheaper than traditional lending according to the article?

AOn-chain lending is cheaper not because it is new technology, but because it eliminates layers of financial waste. Its cost advantage comes from capital aggregation in an open system, where transparency, composability, and automation drive competition.

QWhat does the article identify as the main limitation for the growth of on-chain lending?

AThe main limitation is not a lack of capital, but a lack of borrowable collateral. Most current on-chain lending recycles the same collateral for the same strategies, which is a temporary constraint.

QHow does the article describe the fundamental operational difference that DeFi's cost advantage is built upon?

AThe advantage is built on a fundamentally different operating model where code replaces management costs. Automation replaces processes, transparency replaces discretion, and determinism replaces reconciliation, breaking the traditional cost structure.

QWhat future development does the article suggest is necessary for on-chain lending to reach billions of users?

ATo reach billions of users, on-chain lending must absorb real economic value, not just abstract financial concepts, by combining autonomous crypto-native assets with tokenized real-world rights and obligations.

QAccording to the article, why is traditional lending expensive despite capital being abundant?

ATraditional lending is expensive because everything surrounding the capital is inefficient. The processes of loan origination, risk assessment, and servicing are bloated with costs, lagging models, manual work, compliance burdens, and misaligned incentives.

Related Reads

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

In three days, Google lost two AI legends. On June 18, Noam Shazeer, co-author of the seminal "Attention is All You Need" paper and Gemini co-lead, left for OpenAI. Just 48 hours later, John Jumper, 2024 Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, departed DeepMind for Anthropic. This follows Andrej Karpathy joining Anthropic in May. These moves highlight a structural trend: top AI talent is concentrating at mission-driven, pre-IPO firms like OpenAI and Anthropic, while Google becomes a primary source. The exodus stems from a core mission mismatch. Google's ad-centric model often subordinates AI research to product and revenue goals, creating friction for pioneers like Shazeer, who returned in 2024 only to leave again. In contrast, OpenAI and Anthropic offer singular focus on pushing AI boundaries, whether towards AGI or safety-aligned models, which deeply appeals to top researchers like Jumper. Financial incentives amplify the pull. With both OpenAI and Anthropic nearing IPO, employees stand to gain immensely from equity, an upside Google's mature stock cannot match. Furthermore, the 2023 merger of Google Brain and DeepMind, intended to consolidate strength, has instead created cultural tension and slowed the path from research to product, as evidenced by Gemini's pace. This talent redistribution is reshaping the AI landscape. While Google retains vast data and compute resources, its true crisis is the quiet, continuous loss of the people who define the field's future. The real moat in AI is not infrastructure, but the concentration of brilliant minds—a battle Google is currently losing.

marsbit58m ago

Two Legends Lost in Three Days: Is Google's AI Talent Dam Cracking?

marsbit58m ago

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

Beyond the familiar performance charts like MMLU-Pro and MMMU, which major AI models strive to ace, stands a key "examiner": Chinese-Canadian researcher Wenhu Chen. An assistant professor at the University of Waterloo and founder of TIGERLab, Chen addresses the crucial need for more rigorous AI evaluation. As models like GPT-4 began scoring near-perfect results on older benchmarks like MMLU, it became difficult to distinguish their true capabilities. In response, Chen introduced MMLU-Pro in 2024, featuring harder, more reasoning-focused questions with more answer choices, successfully reintroducing meaningful performance gaps. His work extends to multi-modal evaluation with MMMU and its enhanced version, MMMU-Pro. These benchmarks test a model's ability to understand and reason with complex information from images, charts, and text across diverse academic subjects, exposing the significant challenges even top models face in genuine comprehension. Chen's background in complex QA, table reasoning, and his experience at Google DeepMind on projects like Gemini inform his approach. He understands that effective benchmarks must anticipate how models might "cheat" by memorizing data or avoiding visual analysis. His lab also actively researches video understanding and generation models (e.g., UniVideo, Vamba), ensuring his evaluation work is grounded in practical model-building challenges. Now at Meta's Super Intelligence Lab, Chen continues his focus on multi-modal data and evaluation, representing the deep yet often unseen contributions of Chinese talent in shaping the fundamental tools of the AI industry.

marsbit1h ago

Behind the AI Report Card, Lies a Chinese 'Exam Setter'

marsbit1h ago

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: On Cursor's $60 Billion Sale Many aspiring founders see massive exits like Cursor's $60B sale and wonder why they can't achieve the same, often concluding opportunities are exhausted. But great companies aren't built in obvious, crowded spaces. Cursor, like Stripe, Figma, and Shopify before it, started with a non-consensus belief about the future. Before ChatGPT, they believed AI would transform knowledge work. They focused on a genuinely exciting domain, became their own customer, and obsessed over power users. Their journey involved years of "glass-chewing" effort before the market was ready. The pattern is consistent: identify a long-term technological shift, find a missed entry point, and execute for years before the trend becomes obvious. First-generation products (PayPal, Adobe, Amazon) prove a market exists. Second-generation winners (Stripe, Figma, Shopify) rebuild that market around new insights, technology, or changing customer behaviors. Founders must identify their phase in the cycle. Early entrants like Coinbase or Cursor focus on making new technology usable for power users. Later entrants find the "yin" to the established "yang"—the blind spots incumbents miss as they grow distant from individual users. The key is deep market immersion. Use every product in your space. Talk to users. Build an audience. Stop looking for ideas and start *seeing* them everywhere. Then, choose one. The idea must offer a 10x improvement or solve a "hair-on-fire" pain point—something severe enough that users are already crafting workarounds. When building, avoid feature bloat. Ask: why would someone switch? Great startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction (e.g., Cursor forked VS Code instead of creating a new editor). Distribution is the underestimated moat. Before product-market fit, achieve distribution-market fit. How do customers discover new tools? Founders like those at Airbnb, Stripe, and Cursor did unscalable, manual work to recruit early users. The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Cursor built for years pre-market, faced rejection, and persisted. So did Airbnb, Nvidia, and Rain (which launched post-FTX collapse). The lesson isn't that these founders were smarter, but that they stayed in the game long enough for their insights to compound. Framework: Spot technological cycles. Cultivate unique insight. Obsess over your market. Talk to customers. Find a hair-on-fire problem. Build the simplest wedge. Win your distribution channel. Above all, don't quit when it gets hard. Most people won't do these things consistently. The few who do build the next generation of great companies. Go build.

marsbit1h ago

Alliance Co-founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written at the Moment Cursor Sold for $600 Billion

marsbit1h ago

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619): Market Insights & Analysis This weekly digest curates in-depth analysis often lost in the information flow, focusing on key insights across macro trends, investment, and technology. **Macro & Geopolitics:** With the Strait of Hormuz reopening and military conflict shifting to negotiation, markets are pivoting from "war shock" to "supply restoration." Trades include shorting crude risk premiums, longing airlines/tourism, Asian energy importers, and bond duration, while shorting inflation expectations. LNG, fertilizer, and chemical chains are also being repriced. **Investment & VC:** Ray Dalio advises against betting on concentrated AI giants dominating indices, advocating for diversified portfolios of high-quality, low-correlation assets instead. Analysis covers the 4-year crypto cycle, predicting the core surviving product by 2029 will be asset trading markets. Current BTC metrics suggest a potential bottoming zone, presenting a patient accumulation window. SpaceX's high-profile IPO at a $2.1T valuation faces scrutiny over fundamentals, with key watchpoints being its likely inclusion in the Nasdaq index and Q2 earnings. Concerns are raised about potential "gamma squeeze" and systemic risks if its narrative-driven valuation gets amplified by passive index funds. Robinhood (HOOD) is noted for breaking its high correlation with crypto, bolstered by its stock trading and new underwriting business. **Web3 & AI:** A warning highlights ~$1.8T in off-balance-sheet AI infrastructure commitments (purchase commitments, leases) as a potential systemic risk if AI monetization lags. AI models are being used for World Cup predictions, adding a new layer for betting markets. A cost breakdown of a $20 AI subscription reveals the supply chain from model companies to cloud, GPUs, and power. **Prediction Markets:** The emergence of prediction market "concept stocks" is noted, with Robinhood developing its own platform, Rothera, signaling a shift from market competition to a "channel war" for user access. **CeFi & DeFi:** The SpaceX IPO tested perpetual contract mechanisms for pre-IPO assets, highlighting challenges in handling corporate actions like stock splits on-chain. The de-pegging of STRC (Strategy's preferred share) to ~$89 reflects market concerns over MicroStrategy's capital structure and BTC-backed leverage model. BlackRock's covered-call Bitcoin ETF (BITA) offers yield but caps upside, appealing to yield-seeking institutions. **Ethereum:** An opinion piece argues Ethereum's core strength is its vast developer community and composability, solidifying its role as the default operating system for the financial internet. **Weekly Hot Topics:** Include the US-Iran deal reopening the Strait of Hormuz, Fed's hawkish hold, Anthropic restricting model access, SpaceX acquiring Cursor, and a humorous stock surge for "Liuliumei" due to its "LLM" ticker.

marsbit1h ago

Weekly Editor's Picks (0613-0619)

marsbit1h ago

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

In this letter to entrepreneurs, Alliance reflects on the success of Cursor's $60 billion sale to Elon Musk, using it as a case study to counter the misconception that opportunities in crowded fields like AI or crypto are exhausted. The piece argues that great companies like Cursor, Stripe, Figma, and Shopify are not built by geniuses with perfect ideas, but by founders who start with a non-consensus belief about the future and build for years before that future becomes obvious to everyone. They identify long-term shifts, find overlooked entry points, and execute relentlessly. The framework for success involves: 1. **Identifying your place in the technology cycle**: Early-stage opportunities focus on making new tech usable for power users (e.g., Coinbase, Cursor). Later-stage opportunities involve finding the "yin" to an existing "yang"—the blind spots of first-generation players (e.g., Stripe vs. PayPal, Figma vs. Adobe). 2. **Cultivating unique insights**: Immerse yourself deeply in the market. Use every product, talk to users, and build an audience. Insights will emerge naturally from deep engagement. 3. **Finding a "hair-on-fire" problem**: Look for a 10x improvement or a severe, urgent pain point. The strongest signal is people already building clumsy workarounds. 4. **Building a focused MVP**: Don't just add features because you can. Ask why users would abandon their current tool for yours. The best startups rarely force new behaviors; they improve familiar workflows with drastically lower friction. 5. **Winning a distribution channel**: Distribution is often the moat. Before product-market fit, achieve channel-market fit. Find where your customers are and build an engine to reach them, even through unscalable, manual efforts initially. 6. **Persistence**: The final, unteachable ingredient is resilience. Success stories like Cursor, Airbnb, and Nvidia involved years of grinding, rejection, and perseverance when the path forward seemed unclear. The conclusion is that there is no secret. Most people fail to consistently execute these steps over the long term. The few who do build the companies that define the next era. The world is yours to create.

链捕手1h ago

Alliance's Co-Founder's Letter to Entrepreneurs: Written on the Occasion of Cursor's $60 Billion Sale

链捕手1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片