Aave Mired in a Crisis of Confidence: Service Providers Exit En Masse, Failures in Technology, Governance, and Risk Control

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-10Actualizado a 2026-04-10

Resumen

Aave, a leading DeFi lending protocol, is facing a severe internal crisis marked by the departure of key service providers, raising concerns about its governance, security, and future direction. The crisis began when Chaos Labs, the protocol's long-time risk management provider, terminated its relationship with Aave. The firm cited financial losses, the exit of other major contributors, and fundamental disagreements over the risk architecture of the upcoming Aave V4. Aave Labs declined Chaos Labs' demands for a significant fee increase and exclusive control over key functions like risk management and oracle services. This exit followed the departure of two other critical partners. BGD Labs, the primary technical contributor to Aave V3, accused Aave Labs of forcing an aggressive transition to V4 by limiting V3 development and devaluing its work. Subsequently, the Aave Chan Initiative (ACI), a major governance service provider, announced its planned exit, criticizing Aave Labs for centralizing power and controlling a large portion of voting tokens. The conflict highlights a central paradox within DAOs: the tension between founder-led vision and decentralized governance, and between long-term protocol health and short-term capital interests. Aave Labs is pushing for a more integrated and efficient "Aave Will Win" model with V4, arguing it is necessary for competing at an institutional level. However, critics warn this centralization comes at the cost of the protocol's decentr...

Author: Jae, PANews

Rather than external pressures from the bear market, Aave's internal issues have instead birthed a "black swan."

Aave, long perched atop the lending sector throne, is experiencing the most severe ecosystem shock since its inception. There was no hacker attack, no code vulnerability—only a loss of control and a clash of interests.

From the decisive departure of its technical pillar BGD Labs, to the public split with governance pioneer ACI (Aave Chan Initiative), and now the official severance of ties with risk management steward Chaos Labs, a "great retreat" of service providers is underway.

The depth of this struggle far exceeds a mere partnership dispute; it triggers the ultimate paradox of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization): the opposition between founder's will and distributed governance, the conflict between protocol long-termism and capital's short-term profit-seeking, and the balance between decentralized faith and centralized efficiency for a blue-chip protocol during its scaling phase.

Can Aave continue to win?

Chaos Labs Abandons the Risk Management Gate: What's the Hidden Reason?

On April 7th, Chaos Labs, deeply involved with Aave V2/V3 for three years and achieving "zero major bad debt," announced it was cutting ties with Aave. The exit of this top-tier risk control firm directly hit Aave's security red line.

Chaos Labs cited three reasons: long-term losses, the departure of key contributors BGD Labs and ACI, and fundamental disagreements with Aave Labs on risk management philosophy in the context of the Aave V4 launch.

The focal point of the conflict is V4's "Hub-and-Spoke" architecture: Chaos Labs pointed out that while this design improves capital efficiency, it also exponentially amplifies risk. In an environment with unclear legal liability definitions, the risk control team would need to double their workload to maintain both the massive V3 and V4 systems simultaneously.

Aave Labs expressed respect for this decision and thanked them for their years of contribution, stating that the protocol's smart contracts and network deployments remain unaffected. However, the parting of ways had underlying reasons.

Aave Labs disclosed that it had engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations with Chaos Labs regarding a renewal proposal. It supported increasing their risk management fee from the current level to $5 million but did not support directly raising it to $8 million without subsequent附加条款 (fùjiā tiáokuǎn - additional clauses). It also explicitly opposed three exclusivity clauses: appointing Chaos Labs as the sole risk manager, replacing Chainlink with the Chaos Labs oracle, and setting the unaudited Chaos Labs treasury as the default treasury for all B2B integrations.

Simply put, Chaos Labs wanted to expand its control and commercial interests. But for a DeFi protocol, over-reliance on a single supplier for risk management significantly increases systemic risk and weakens the protocol's own governance independence. For Aave, the potential risk was too great.

Furthermore, in March of this year, the Aave CAPO oracle managed by Chaos Labs suffered an on-chain configuration error, leading to the undervaluation of wstETH by approximately 2.85% and mistakenly triggering the forced liquidation of healthy positions worth about $27 million.

Aave Labs emphasized it will continue to adhere to a two-tier risk management model and introduce a third-tier technical risk management mechanism led by Aave Labs. During the transition, LlamaRisk will take over more risk coverage duties from Chaos Labs, with Aave Labs supporting its team expansion and budget, and providing engineering and analytical resources to ensure a smooth handover.

Regarding Aave V4, its architecture introduces isolated risk markets, new liquidation logic, and governance-controlled parameter mechanisms through Spokes, allowing the DAO to manage risks across different markets and assets more granularly. In the short term, Aave Labs will work closely with LlamaRisk to ensure a smooth risk management transition and unaffected protocol operation.

Technology and Governance Also Falter, Internal Risks at Aave Intensify

Beyond the security front, Aave's technology and governance have also faltered in the past two months.

On April 1st, Aave V3 technical service provider BGD Labs announced the termination of all technical contributions—this was no April Fool's joke. As the main development team for V3, BGD accused Aave Labs of "artificially limiting" V3 feature development and "malignantly devaluing" its worth to强行推行 (qiángxíng tuīxíng - forcibly push) the immature V4, even using parameters to force user migration.

BGD stated that V3 contributed 98% of Aave's code and nearly all its TVL, generating over $100 million in annual revenue, and was the "jewel" in the protocol's crown. Aave Labs closed V4 development to external teams, excluding them. BGD Labs had neither a voice nor fair compensation and could only protest this "radical transition" and irresponsibility towards user asset security by leaving.

The governance service provider ACI, led by Marc Zeller, also plans to exit in July, directly triggered by BGD Labs' departure. Marc Zeller blasted Aave Labs for initiating a "slow-motion coup": on-chain data shows it controls 23% of the AAVE token supply, with its whale voting power overwhelming community proposals.

ACI's exit signals Aave's governance moving from "checks and balances" towards "centralization," with third-party service providers reduced to mere ornaments.

Although Aave was once a model of distributed collaboration in the DeFi market—Aave Labs setting the course, third-party service providers handling development, governance, and risk control, with multiple parties complementing each other to support its leading lending position—cracks are now increasingly appearing in this golden system that operated for years.

Growing Pains or Fatal Illness? Aave Faces a Test of Capital and Trust

Amidst this complex melee, the interests of the involved parties paint starkly different pictures.

From the perspective of Aave Labs and founder Stani Kulechov, they hope to transform the protocol from a loose multi-party collaborative body into a more cohesive and efficient closed-loop ecosystem through V4 and the "Aave Will Win" framework.

The business logic behind this transformation is: DeFi has entered a scaling phase where loose collaboration alone can hardly meet institutional demands and global financial competition.

By concentrating resources on developing high-margin products and unifying brand ownership, Aave can improve execution efficiency, reduce fragmented decision-making, and enhance the value capture ability of the AAVE token.

Of course, this is also a problem mature DeFi protocols will face during scaling, and Aave's internal turmoil, as the lending leader, is magnified, becoming a mirror for the entire DeFi governance model.

However, this efficiency gain through "strongman rule" is seen as coming at the cost of the DAO's decentralized credibility.

Service providers essentially rely on professional skills to obtain funding from the DAO. When Aave Labs tries to marginalize them, or the compensation provided is insufficient to offset the growing legal and operational risks, they will inevitably choose to leave. This also reveals that under the current DAO service provider model, even top-tier teams face unsustainable business models.

For Aave, will the service provider exodus be short-term growing pains or a long-term fatal illness?

From an optimistic view, the wave of service provider departures might be a bout of "growing pains" during Aave's transformation.

  1. Streamlined Decision-Making: With multiple external stakeholders gone, Aave Labs can advance V4 more unimpeded, shortening product launch cycles in the face of fierce market competition;
  2. Frontend Revenue Recirculation: If the "Aave Will Win" proposal ultimately achieves 100% frontend revenue returning to the DAO, the AAVE token will transform from a mere "governance token" into a genuine "revenue certificate";
  3. Unified Technical Paradigm: V4's "Hub-and-Spoke" architecture solves the multi-chain fragmentation issue of V3. By unifying liquidity hubs, Aave is poised to gain a foothold in the RWA and institutional credit markets.

However, these positive expectations are largely based on the assumption that "everything goes smoothly." The realistic negative impacts are more pressing.

  1. Security Downgrade: V4's complexity requires stricter risk control mechanisms. After losing Chaos Labs, Aave now relies solely on LlamaRisk as its primary risk control service provider, creating a single point of failure that greatly increases systemic risk during extreme market conditions.
  2. Experience Vacuum: The departing service providers take with them three years of historical operational data and experience. If the protocol encounters a sudden incident, newly接手 (jiēshǒu - taking over) teams like LlamaRisk might respond slowly due to lack of deep involvement;
  3. Reputation Damage: Aave Labs' intervention in voting through substantial token holdings is essentially透支 (tòuzhī -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支极 (tòuzhī - overdrawing/spending future credibility) the protocol's credibility assets. If the DAO loses its checks and balances mechanism, its appeal to new developers will be greatly diminished.

These negative impacts are also raising concerns among capital. Although Aave has not experienced very serious security incidents in the past, the uncertainty of risk is rising, and the community is beginning to question its execution and risk control capabilities. Some bluntly state, "When the old crew disembarks en masse and the new crew isn't familiar with the route yet, don't put all your assets on board."

Currently, Aave stands at a critical crossroads.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the main reasons behind the recent departure of key service providers from Aave?

AThe main reasons include disagreements over the V4 upgrade's risk management model, concerns over centralization of power by Aave Labs, insufficient compensation for service providers, and fundamental differences in vision for the protocol's future.

QHow does the departure of Chaos Labs impact Aave's risk management framework?

AChaos Labs' departure creates a significant gap in Aave's risk management, potentially increasing systemic risk. It leaves LlamaRisk as the primary risk service provider, raising concerns about single-point vulnerabilities and the loss of three years of operational experience and data.

QWhat is the 'Hub-and-Spoke' architecture in Aave V4, and why is it controversial?

AThe 'Hub-and-Spoke' architecture is a new design in Aave V4 intended to improve capital efficiency by creating a central liquidity hub connected to various isolated risk markets (spokes). It is controversial because critics, like Chaos Labs, argue it exponentially amplifies risk and creates a much larger, more complex workload for risk managers.

QWhat accusations did BGD Labs make against Aave Labs when announcing their departure?

ABGD Labs accused Aave Labs of 'artificially limiting' V3 features, 'maliciously devaluing' its contributions, and forcing user migration to the new V4. They claimed they were excluded from V4 development and left with no say in the process and no fair compensation.

QWhat is the 'Aave Will Win' framework, and what are its potential benefits and drawbacks according to the article?

AThe 'Aave Will Win' framework is a strategic vision led by Aave Labs to transform the protocol into a more cohesive and efficient ecosystem. Potential benefits include streamlined decision-making, 100% front-end revenue returning to the DAO (making the AAVE token a yield-bearing asset), and a unified technical paradigm for scaling. The main drawback is the perceived sacrifice of the protocol's decentralized credibility and governance, leading to a 'centralized' power structure.

Lecturas Relacionadas

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

The article "iQiyi Is Too Impatient" discusses the controversy surrounding the Chinese streaming platform IQiyi's recent announcement of an "AI Actor Library" during its 2026 World Conference. IQiyi claimed over 100 actors, including well-known names like Zhang Ruoyun and Yu Hewei, had joined the initiative. CEO Gong Yu suggested AI could enable actors to "star in 14 dramas a year instead of 4" and that "live-action filming might become a world cultural heritage." The announcement quickly sparked backlash. Multiple actors named in the list issued urgent statements denying they had signed any AI-related authorization agreements. This forced IQiyi to clarify that inclusion in the library only indicated a willingness to *consider* AI projects, with separate negotiations required for any specific role. The incident, which trended on social media with hashtags like "IQiyi is crazy," is presented as a sign of the company's growing desperation. Facing intense competition from short-video platforms like Douyin and Kuaishou, as well as Bilibili and Xiaohongshu, IQiyi's financial performance has weakened, with revenues declining for two consecutive years. The author argues that IQiyi is "too impatient" to tell a compelling AI story to reassure the market, especially as it pursues a listing on the Hong Kong stock exchange. The piece concludes by outlining three key "AI questions" IQiyi must answer: defining its role as a tool provider versus a content creator, balancing the "coldness" of AI with the human element audiences desire, and properly managing the interests of platforms, actors, and viewers. The core dilemma is that while AI can reduce costs and increase efficiency, it risks creating homogenized, formulaic content and devaluing human performers.

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

iQiyi Is Too Impatient

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

Jensen Huang Publicly Challenges Google and Amazon, Is the Chip Business Entirely Sustained by Anthropic?

In a candid interview, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang challenged competitors like Google and Amazon, admitted past strategic errors, and criticized U.S. export controls on AI chips. He framed Nvidia’s role as turning “electricity in, tokens out,” emphasizing the complexity and value of AI inference. Huang dismissed rival custom chips like Google’s TPU and Amazon’s Trainium as inflexible and niche, claiming their growth relies heavily on clients like Anthropic. He also acknowledged missing early investment opportunities in OpenAI and Anthropic. On China, Huang warned that export restrictions risk pushing the country toward self-sufficiency and could cost U.S. leadership in AI. Finally, he explained Nvidia’s acquisition of Groq as a move to serve premium, low-latency token markets. Throughout, Huang emphasized ecosystem trust and Nvidia’s central role in global AI infrastructure.

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

Jensen Huang Publicly Challenges Google and Amazon, Is the Chip Business Entirely Sustained by Anthropic?

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

ARK's SpaceX IPO Investment Guide: $1.75 Trillion Valuation, 95x Price-to-Sales Ratio, Where Is the Money Going?

ARK Invest, a major investor in SpaceX, provides an analysis following SpaceX's confidential IPO filing on April 1, 2026, targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation and up to $75 billion in funding for a Nasdaq listing around June 2026. This would be the largest IPO in history. The valuation implies a price-to-sales ratio of ~95x based on ~$18.5B in projected 2025 revenue. ARK argues this reflects future potential, not current reality. Key drivers include Starlink, with over 10M users and $20B+ in 2026 revenue, launch services which have reduced costs by ~95% since 2008, and the strategic merger with xAI in February 2026, enabling vertically integrated AI and orbital computing. ARK’s investment thesis is based on SpaceX's proven execution of ambitious goals, like reusable rockets and global satellite internet. The firm notes that significant value creation often occurs pre-IPO, and its Venture Fund offers exposure to SpaceX’s earlier private stages. Post-IPO, the fund will manage the position per standard lock-up and rebalancing processes, maintaining flexibility to reinvest in other private innovations. The analysis is based on public estimates and ARK research; the S-1 filing is not yet public. This is not investment advice.

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

ARK's SpaceX IPO Investment Guide: $1.75 Trillion Valuation, 95x Price-to-Sales Ratio, Where Is the Money Going?

marsbitHace 22 min(s)

Stablecoin Hype Overblown? Moody’s Says Banks Aren’t In Danger

The article discusses the legislative stalemate in the US over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025 (CLARITY Act), which aims to regulate crypto assets. A key point of contention is whether stablecoins should be allowed to pay interest, with crypto companies opposing a ban and banks supporting it. Moody's analyst Abhi Srivastava states that, for now, stablecoins do not pose a significant threat to traditional banks due to existing efficient payment systems and the current prohibition on yield-bearing stablecoins. This limits their appeal for pulling deposits from banks at scale. However, with the stablecoin market cap exceeding $300 billion and growth in tokenized assets, banks could face future pressure from deposit outflows. The crypto industry warns that failure to pass the bill could lead to stricter regulatory crackdowns. Negotiations continue with little progress, despite both sides desiring a resolution.

bitcoinistHace 1 hora(s)

Stablecoin Hype Overblown? Moody’s Says Banks Aren’t In Danger

bitcoinistHace 1 hora(s)

Not a Price Hike, but a Supply Cut? Oil Prices Have Crossed the Tipping Point

The global oil market has passed a critical point, shifting the focus from price increases to potential physical supply shortages. The core issue is a time mismatch: even if the Strait of Hormuz reopens, shipping disruptions have already caused significant delays, which will continue to deplete onshore crude inventories for weeks. Refinery behavior acts as an amplifier. Reduced runs in Asia and Europe don’t reflect weaker demand but instead shrink product inventories, raising fuel prices and refining margins, which in turn encourages higher runs—creating a self-reinforcing cycle. If the Strait remains closed beyond April, traditional pricing models may fail. The market could face an unprecedented physical shortfall of 11-13 million barrels per day—roughly four times historical disruption levels. In such a scenario, price becomes an inadequate balancing tool. The only way to rebalance the market would be policy-driven demand destruction, similar to COVID-era lockdowns. Current prices around $95/barrel are insufficient to balance the market. Key signals to watch include inventory levels, policy announcements, and the pace of involuntary demand contraction. Geopolitically, the situation appears likely to worsen before improving, with little room for compromise between the US and Iran.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Not a Price Hike, but a Supply Cut? Oil Prices Have Crossed the Tipping Point

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros

Artículos destacados

Cómo comprar AAVE

¡Bienvenido a HTX.com! Hemos hecho que comprar Aave Protocol (AAVE) sea simple y conveniente. Sigue nuestra guía paso a paso para iniciar tu viaje de criptos.Paso 1: crea tu cuenta HTXUtiliza tu correo electrónico o número de teléfono para registrarte y obtener una cuenta gratuita en HTX. Experimenta un proceso de registro sin complicaciones y desbloquea todas las funciones.Obtener mi cuentaPaso 2: ve a Comprar cripto y elige tu método de pagoTarjeta de crédito/débito: usa tu Visa o Mastercard para comprar Aave Protocol (AAVE) al instante.Saldo: utiliza fondos del saldo de tu cuenta HTX para tradear sin problemas.Terceros: hemos agregado métodos de pago populares como Google Pay y Apple Pay para mejorar la comodidad.P2P: tradear directamente con otros usuarios en HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): ofrecemos servicios personalizados y tipos de cambio competitivos para los traders.Paso 3: guarda tu Aave Protocol (AAVE)Después de comprar tu Aave Protocol (AAVE), guárdalo en tu cuenta HTX. Alternativamente, puedes enviarlo a otro lugar mediante transferencia blockchain o utilizarlo para tradear otras criptomonedas.Paso 4: tradear Aave Protocol (AAVE)Tradear fácilmente con Aave Protocol (AAVE) en HTX's mercado spot. Simplemente accede a tu cuenta, selecciona tu par de trading, ejecuta tus trades y monitorea en tiempo real. Ofrecemos una experiencia fácil de usar tanto para principiantes como para traders experimentados.

312 Vistas totalesPublicado en 2024.12.11Actualizado en 2025.03.21

Cómo comprar AAVE

Discusiones

Bienvenido a la comunidad de HTX. Aquí puedes mantenerte informado sobre los últimos desarrollos de la plataforma y acceder a análisis profesionales del mercado. A continuación se presentan las opiniones de los usuarios sobre el precio de AAVE (AAVE).

活动图片