IOSG Founder: The Most Dangerous Prisoner's Dilemma in DeFi History

marsbitPublicado a 2026-04-22Actualizado a 2026-04-22

Resumen

IOSG Founder: DeFi's Most Dangerous Prisoner's Dilemma A $230M bad debt remains unresolved, with Aave Collector holding over $200M in liquid assets and LayerZero recently raising $120M—both fully capable of covering the losses. Aave has lost $8.45B in TVL in under two days, while the entire DeFi ecosystem has bled $13.2B. The silence from all parties involved is exacerbating the crisis. The author recalls the DeFi spirit of 2020, when MakerDAO faced collapse during the March 12 crash but took responsibility by auctioning MKR to cover bad debt. Today, in contrast, there is only silence. Users are withdrawing funds not just from Aave but from Spark and other DeFi protocols, voting with their feet. This loss of trust threatens the entire ecosystem. This is not just Aave’s problem. Spark, MakerDAO, and all Ethereum DeFi protocols must coordinate. Trust, once broken, affects everyone. Time is critical—every hour of silence leads to more capital leaving permanently. The author urges Aave’s Stani Kulechov, Vitalik Buterin, AaveDAO, KelpDAO, LayerZero, and RuneKek to communicate publicly and reassure the market. Silence is the worst option.

Author: Jocy, IOSG Founder

$230 million USD bad debt remains unresolved. Aave Collector holds over $200 million in liquid assets, LayerZero just completed a $120 million funding round—both are fully capable of covering the losses. Aave has lost $8.45 billion in TVL in less than two days, while the entire DeFi space has evaporated $13.2 billion. With each passing day, these numbers continue to grow.

But no party has responded to who should be responsible for the stolen assets, and no one has made a statement. They are playing a game of mutual博弈, while the entire DeFi space is suffering.

Where has the DeFi spirit of 2020 gone?

On March 12, 2020, ETH dropped to $80, on-chain liquidation auctions failed due to no bids, and prices一度归零, pushing MakerDAO to the brink of systemic collapse. At that time, the MKR Foundation stepped forward, proposing to auction MKR to buy back ETH and cover the bad debt, with major community participants actively engaging in the bidding.

Back then, the Ethereum community and the DeFi spirit made everyone proud—in the face of crisis, someone took responsibility, someone acted. Today? Silence. Many of my friends are not just withdrawing funds from Aave—they are pulling out from Spark and even other DeFi protocols. They are not panicking; they are voting with their feet: if this ecosystem cannot even resolve a $260 million issue with anyone willing to solve it, why should we keep our money here?

Once these funds leave, they will never return.

Aave has faced many governance crises in the past, with many in the community holding different opinions and disagreements never ceasing. But today is not the time for debating governance philosophy. Looking back at the prosperity of DeFi Summer, looking back at the decentralized financial world we built together—we have come a long way. The future of DeFi should not be destroyed by silence.

This is not just Aave's problem. Spark, MakerDAO, and all DeFi protocols on Ethereum should participate in coordination. Trust collapse does not distinguish between protocols; if this is not handled well, the entire DeFi TVL will be repriced, and everyone will suffer.

Time is extremely precious.

Aave could first commit to covering the losses, then take time to coordinate specific solutions, which would stop the bank run. If the projects remain silent, @VitalikButerin should step in to coordinate—no need to掏钱, just a statement saying "this matter will be properly resolved" would suffice.

Every additional hour of silence means more funds permanently流失.

Calling on @StaniKulechov, @VitalikButerin, @AaveDAO, @KelpDAO, @LayerZero_Core, @RuneKek to communicate publicly and give the market a clear signal.

Silence is the worst option.

Preguntas relacionadas

QWhat is the core issue described in the article regarding the DeFi ecosystem?

AThe core issue is a $230 million bad debt situation resulting from an exploit, where major entities like Aave and LayerZero have the capacity to cover the losses but remain silent, creating a dangerous prisoner's dilemma that is causing massive capital outflows and eroding trust across the entire DeFi ecosystem.

QHow does the author contrast the current situation with the DeFi community's response during the March 12, 2020 (Black Thursday) crisis?

AThe author contrasts the current silence and inaction with the March 2020 crisis, where the MKR Foundation and community members proactively took responsibility by auctioning MKR to buy back ETH and cover bad debts, showcasing the 'DeFi spirit' of accountability and collective action that is now absent.

QWhat broader consequence does the article suggest if the current crisis is not resolved promptly and transparently?

AThe article suggests that if the crisis is not resolved, it will lead to a permanent loss of user trust and capital, causing a broader re-pricing of Total Value Locked (TVL) across all DeFi protocols, not just Aave, as investors withdraw funds due to a lack of confidence in the ecosystem's security and accountability.

QWhat specific action does the author propose to immediately stop the capital outflow and restore confidence?

AThe author proposes that Aave should immediately commit to covering the losses to halt the bank run, even if the specific reimbursement plan is coordinated later, and suggests that influential figures like Vitalik Buterin could help restore confidence by publicly stating that the situation will be resolved.

QWhich key entities and individuals does the author explicitly call upon to break their silence and communicate publicly?

AThe author explicitly calls upon StaniKulechov (Aave founder), Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum co-founder), AaveDAO, KelpDAO, LayerZero, and RuneKek (founder of MakerDAO) to provide public communication and a clear signal to the market.

Lecturas Relacionadas

AI Agent Completely Transforms Web3 Gaming: From the Rugpull Bakery Bot Controversy to the New 2026 Agent Paradigm

This article explores how the AI Agent paradigm is fundamentally transforming Web3 gaming, moving from a disruptive force to a core, legitimized element. It begins with the controversy in the competitive baking game Rugpull Bakery, where automated scripts caused fairness issues. Instead of banning them, the developers integrated AI Agents into the official gameplay by providing technical documentation (skill.md, agent.json), marking a shift towards "Agentic Gaming." The piece outlines three primary implementation models for AI Agents in Web3 games by 2026: 1. **Autonomous Competitors & Economic Entities:** AI Agents act as independent players with unique strategies. Examples include TEN Protocol's poker agents, AI Arena's trainable NFT fighters, and Satoshi Strike Force's "Digital Athletes" trained on player data. The Somnia blockchain is highlighted as a dedicated "Agentic L1" infrastructure supporting this model at scale. 2. **Modular Infrastructure & Programmable Environments:** This model, exemplified by EVE Frontier, allows AI Agents to program game world logic itself. Using "Smart Assemblies" (e.g., Smart Turrets, Smart Gates), Agents can modify shared economic and physical rules on-chain, creating dynamic, player/AI-built worlds. The ERC-8183 standard further enables these automated entities to hire other AI services for complex tasks. 3. **Hybrid Companions & Dynamic Adaptation:** Here, AI serves as a collaborative partner. In Parallel Colony, highly autonomous AI Avatars work alongside human players who provide high-level guidance. Illuvium plans to use AI to make NPCs dynamic and responsive, creating personalized, emergent narratives for each player. The conclusion posits that Web3 gaming has reached a "post-human" inflection point. Blockchains' transparency and programmability, combined with new standards and infrastructure like Somnia, make integrating and governing AI Agents not just viable but essential. The future lies in a symbiotic digital order where players transition from manual laborers to commanders and partners of algorithmic intelligence.

marsbitHace 4 min(s)

AI Agent Completely Transforms Web3 Gaming: From the Rugpull Bakery Bot Controversy to the New 2026 Agent Paradigm

marsbitHace 4 min(s)

Saylor Bought 1,550 BTC, But This Might Be Strategy's Worst Trade Recently

Saylor purchased 1,550 BTC, but this may be one of MicroStrategy's worst recent trades for its MSTR shareholders. The article explains that for MSTR to increase its Bitcoin-per-share (BPS) metric, it must issue new shares at an mNAV (market cap to net asset value) ratio above a "breakeven" level, calculated here as 1.30. In this transaction, MSTR raised $181 million via an ATM offering and used only $101.3 million to buy Bitcoin, with the rest reportedly added to its dollar reserves. Crucially, the author argues the shares were likely sold below the 1.30 mNAV threshold. This combination—selling below breakeven mNAV and not deploying all proceeds into Bitcoin—resulted in a slight dilution of BPS, estimated at a 0.19% decrease. The trade is framed as a sacrifice of MSTR shareholder value (BPS) to extend the dollar reserve runway for its Sustainable Treasury Reserve Coin (STRC) subsidiary from 6.3 to 7 months. The author concludes that Strategy is gambling that this move will improve market sentiment for STRC and MSTR, allowing future value-accretive fundraising. If it fails, the company may face the difficult choice of further diluting MSTR or delaying STRC dividends.

marsbitHace 8 min(s)

Saylor Bought 1,550 BTC, But This Might Be Strategy's Worst Trade Recently

marsbitHace 8 min(s)

Saylor's Purchase of 1550 Bitcoin Is a Bad Trade

**Title: Saylor's Purchase of 1,550 Bitcoins Was a Bad Trade** The article critically analyzes Strategy's recent move of selling 32 bitcoins followed by a much larger purchase of 1,550 bitcoins. While appearing bullish, the author argues this trade is detrimental to MSTR shareholders. The core argument revolves around the concept of "breakeven modified Net Asset Value (mNAV)," a key metric for Strategy. To increase Bitcoin per share (BPS) for MSTR holders, Strategy must issue new shares at a premium high enough that the funds raised can buy more bitcoin than the bitcoin backing each existing share. Currently, this breakeven mNAV is estimated at 1.30. The recent trade failed on two counts: 1. The shares for the $181 million raise were issued at an mNAV *below* the 1.30 breakeven point. Selling "cheap" shares to buy bitcoin actually *reduces* BPS. 2. Only $101.3 million of the raised funds were used to buy bitcoin; the rest went to boost the company's dollar reserves. The breakeven mNAV calculation assumes *100%* of proceeds are used for bitcoin purchases. Diverting funds, even if mNAV were high, dilutes BPS. The result is an estimated 0.19% decrease in Bitcoin per share for MSTR holders. In exchange, Strategy merely extended its operational runway for its dollar reserves from ~6.3 months to 7 months. The author interprets this as Strategy prioritizing the survival and development of its STRC business over its stated core goal of increasing MSTR's BPS. This constitutes a gamble: if sacrificing MSTR value leads to improved market sentiment and a recovery in STRC's price (and thus mNAV), the whole system could work. If not, Strategy may be forced into a cycle of further diluting MSTR to stay afloat, potentially leading to deferred STRC dividends or corporate decline. The article concludes with a hope for price recovery for Bitcoin, MSTR, and STRC.

Foresight NewsHace 15 min(s)

Saylor's Purchase of 1550 Bitcoin Is a Bad Trade

Foresight NewsHace 15 min(s)

The AI Bear Market Lasting Two Days Is Over; Why Did Funds Buy Back Storage Stocks First?

After a severe two-day selloff in early June that erased over $1 trillion from U.S. chip stock market value, capital is flowing back first to the memory sector. The correction was not driven by a collapse in AI demand but rather a market reassessment of high expectations. Stocks like Broadcom faced selling pressure despite strong AI revenue guidance, signaling a shift in focus from who has an "AI story" to who can most rapidly translate AI demand into verifiable profits and earnings per share (EPS). Memory companies, such as Micron and SK Hynix, are leading the recovery because their EPS growth is more immediately verifiable. The AI server boom directly increases demand for high-bandwidth memory (HBM) and high-capacity server DRAM, tightening supply and driving up contract prices for conventional DRAM and NAND Flash. This price increase, coupled with a shift to higher-margin products, flows directly into near-term revenue and profitability, as evidenced in recent earnings reports. In contrast, other AI semiconductor segments like GPUs, ASICs, and optical modules, while central to the long-term AI infrastructure story, face longer and less certain paths to EPS validation. Their growth depends more on future product cycles, customer adoption timelines, and capital expenditure plans. The rebound in memory stocks highlights a market preference for assets with shorter, more transparent EPS conversion cycles following the recent de-risking phase. However, this does not negate the potential of other AI hardware segments should they provide clearer near-term order visibility. The episode has raised the validation bar for all AI-related investments.

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

The AI Bear Market Lasting Two Days Is Over; Why Did Funds Buy Back Storage Stocks First?

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

Google's $85 Billion Secondary Offering Breaks Historical Record, Buffett Invests $10 Billion in AI Infrastructure

Alphabet (Google) has completed a record-breaking $847.5 billion equity offering, the largest in history. The funds are earmarked for AI infrastructure, with Alphabet's 2026 capital expenditure guidance raised to $180-190 billion. The complex financing structure included public offerings, convertible notes, and a $100 billion private placement to Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway, seen as a major vote of confidence from value investors. Alphabet's move comes amid strong Q1 2026 results, with revenue hitting $110 billion and cloud backlog surpassing $460 billion. This offering signals the start of a massive AI funding supercycle. SpaceX is set for a $750 billion IPO, while AI giants Anthropic and OpenAI have also confidentially filed for public listings targeting trillion-dollar valuations. Analysts estimate total AI-related equity issuance in 2026 could reach $400 billion, dwarfing previous records. The flood of supply raises questions about market absorption, with historical data showing significant post-IPO pullbacks. Some advise investors seeking AI exposure to consider established players like Alphabet, which offers growth potential with comparatively lower risk than pure-play AI startups.

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

Google's $85 Billion Secondary Offering Breaks Historical Record, Buffett Invests $10 Billion in AI Infrastructure

marsbitHace 21 min(s)

Trading

Spot

Futuros