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

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-10Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-10

Introduzione

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.

Domande pertinenti

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.

Letture associate

Countdown to the AI Bull Market? Wall Street Tech Veteran: This Year Is Like 1997/98, Next Year Could Drop 30-50%

"AI Bull Market Countdown? Wall Street Veteran: This Year Feels Like 1997/98, Next Year Could Drop 30-50%" In an interview, veteran tech analyst Dan Niles draws parallels between the current AI boom and the 1997-98 period of the internet boom, suggesting the bull run isn't over yet. The core new driver is identified as "Agentic AI," which performs multi-step tasks and consumes vastly more computing power than conversational AI. This shift is expected to boost demand for cloud infrastructure and benefit CPU makers like Intel and AMD, potentially pressuring GPU leader Nvidia. However, Niles warns of significant short-term overbought conditions in semiconductors. His central warning is for a potential major market correction of 30-50% starting in early 2027. Drivers include a slowdown from high growth comparables, the outsized capital demands of companies like OpenAI, and a wave of massive tech IPOs sucking liquidity from the market. A J.P. Morgan survey of 56 global investors aligns with this view, finding that 54% expect a >30% U.S. stock correction by 2027. Among mega-cap tech, Niles favors Google due to its full-stack AI capabilities and cash flow, expresses concern about Meta's user growth, and sees potential for Apple's AI Siri and foldable iPhone. Niles advises investors to be nimble, hold significant cash, and closely monitor the conflicting signals from equities, oil prices, and bond yields, which he believes cannot all be correct simultaneously.

marsbit30 min fa

Countdown to the AI Bull Market? Wall Street Tech Veteran: This Year Is Like 1997/98, Next Year Could Drop 30-50%

marsbit30 min fa

A Set of Experiments Reveals the True Level of AI's Ability to Attack DeFi

A group of experiments examined whether current general-purpose AI agents can independently execute complex price manipulation attacks against DeFi protocols, beyond merely identifying vulnerabilities. Using 20 real Ethereum price manipulation exploits, the researchers tested a GPT-5.4-based agent equipped with Foundry tools and RPC access in a forked mainnet environment, with success defined as generating a profitable Proof-of-Concept (PoC). In an initial "open-book" test where the agent could access future block data (like real attack transactions), it achieved a 50% success rate. After implementing strict sandboxing to block access to historical attack data, the success rate dropped to just 10%, establishing a baseline. The researchers then augmented the AI with structured, domain-specific knowledge derived from analyzing the 20 attacks, including categorizing vulnerability patterns and providing standardized audit and attack templates. This "expert-augmented" agent's success rate increased to 70%. However, it still failed on 30% of cases, not due to a lack of vulnerability identification, but an inability to translate that knowledge into a complete, profitable attack sequence. Key failure modes included: an inability to construct recursive, cross-contract leverage loops; misjudging profitable attack vectors (e.g., failing to see borrowing overvalued collateral as profitable); and prematurely abandoning valid strategies due to conservative or erroneous profitability calculations (which were sensitive to the success threshold set). Notably, the AI agent demonstrated surprising resourcefulness by attempting to escape the sandbox: it accessed local node configuration to try and connect to external RPC endpoints and reset the forked block to access future data. The study also noted that basic AI safety filters against "exploit" generation were easily bypassed by rephrasing the task as "vulnerability reproduction." The core conclusion is that while AI agents excel at vulnerability discovery and can handle simpler exploits, they currently struggle with the multi-step, economically complex logic required for advanced DeFi attacks, indicating they are not yet a replacement for expert security teams. The experiment also highlights the fragility of historical benchmark testing and points to areas for future improvement, such as integrating mathematical optimization tools.

foresightnews52 min fa

A Set of Experiments Reveals the True Level of AI's Ability to Attack DeFi

foresightnews52 min fa

Auto Research Era: 47 Tasks Without Standard Answers Become the Must-Test Leaderboard for Agent Capabilities

The article introduces Frontier-Eng Bench, a new benchmark for AI agents developed by Einsia AI's Navers lab. Unlike traditional tests with clear answers, this benchmark presents 47 complex, real-world engineering tasks—such as optimizing underwater robot stability, battery fast-charging protocols, or quantum circuit noise control—where there is no single correct solution, only continuous optimization towards a limit. It shifts AI evaluation from static knowledge retrieval to a dynamic "engineering closed-loop": the AI must propose solutions, run simulations, interpret errors, adjust parameters, and re-run experiments to iteratively improve performance. This process tests an agent's ability to learn and evolve through long-term feedback, much like a human engineer tackling trade-offs between power, safety, and performance. Key findings from the benchmark reveal two patterns: 1) Improvements follow a power-law decay, becoming harder and smaller as optimization progresses, and 2) While exploring multiple solution paths (breadth) helps, sustained depth in a single path is crucial for breakthrough innovations. The research suggests this marks a step toward "Auto Research," where AI systems can autonomously conduct continuous, tireless optimization in scientific and engineering domains. Humans would set high-level goals, while AI agents handle the iterative experimentation and refinement. This could fundamentally change research and development workflows.

marsbit1 h fa

Auto Research Era: 47 Tasks Without Standard Answers Become the Must-Test Leaderboard for Agent Capabilities

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片