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

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

Apple Pays Rent Too: The Two-Way Flow of "Traffic Tax" and "AI Capability Rent" Between Tech Giants For over two decades, Google has paid Apple an estimated $20 billion annually to remain the default search engine on Safari, a "traffic tax" for a critical user entry point. However, in 2026, the direction of this cash flow partially reversed. Apple agreed to pay Google roughly $1 billion per year to license its Gemini AI models, as Apple's own models reportedly struggled with complex tasks. This creates a unique dynamic: Apple acts as the "landlord" in the established search ecosystem, collecting rent from Google for access. Simultaneously, in the emerging AI arena, Apple becomes the "tenant," paying Google for access to cutting-edge AI capabilities it cannot currently match internally. While Apple claims its new models are "distilled" from Gemini outputs and contain "not a drop" of Google's original code, core dependencies remain. Its knowledge base is refined using Gemini's outputs, and its most powerful cloud model runs on Google's infrastructure. Apple has structured the deal as non-exclusive, allowing it to theoretically switch AI suppliers—a hedge against over-reliance. The future hinges on whether advanced AI models become a commodity (cheap and abundant) or remain a concentrated, scarce resource (expensive and controlled by few). Apple is betting on the former, leveraging its massive device ecosystem to be a powerful, choosy customer. If the latter proves true, its bargaining power could erode. This power dynamic is extending to developers. Apple, Google, and WeChat are all pushing for apps to expose their core functions as standardized "actions" or "intents" that their respective AI assistants (Siri, Gemini, WeChat AI) can directly call. The new scarce resource is no longer just app store visibility, but "being selected by the AI." The currency of "rent" has changed from a 30% revenue share to ceding control over how users interact with an app's functions.

marsbit1 h fa

Apple Also Has to Pay Rent Now

marsbit1 h fa

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

With the excitement around SpaceX's recent public listing reigniting interest in the US stock market, Chinese investors face significant challenges accessing compliant and convenient trading channels following regulatory actions against major online brokers. This article explores the available options, highlighting their risks and limitations. Traditional paths for US stock investments remain problematic. Qualified Domestic Institutional Investor (QDII) and Listed Open-Ended Fund (LOF) products, while compliant, suffer from high fees, significant purchase premiums, and a very limited selection of assets. Small, unregulated offshore brokers pose substantial risks, including potential insolvency. While secure, VIP accounts at banks in Hong Kong or Singapore require high minimum deposits (often 1-2 million RMB) and in-person visits, placing them out of reach for most retail investors. The article positions cryptocurrency exchanges, specifically their TradFi (traditional finance on-chain) offerings, as a compelling alternative. Platforms like WEEX are noted for providing access to a wide range of US stocks and ETFs, including SpaceX (SPCXON), through tokenized assets. This method offers advantages such as a single account for both crypto and traditional assets, USDT-based settlement avoiding fiat complexities, flexible leverage, and robust risk management. To attract users, WEEX is promoting a "First Trade Guarantee" campaign. Running from June 15 to July 8 (UTC+8), it features a $30,000 prize pool. Users who trade $500 worth of US stock contracts can qualify for a guarantee on their first eligible trade: 100% loss coverage up to $30 or a 20% bonus on profits up to $30. The campaign is presented as a low-risk opportunity for both crypto natives and traditional investors to experience US stock trading.

marsbit1 h fa

Missed the SpaceX IPO? WEEX's "First Trade Protection" Lets You Experience US Stock Trading Risk-Free.

marsbit1 h fa

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

How Hard Is It to Make a Chip? A Division Error Cost $475 Million Chip expert Shi Kan, a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences and a popular tech creator, explains the immense challenges of chip development. Chips are foundational to modern technology, but their creation is extraordinarily difficult. The journey from sand to a functional chip involves complex design and manufacturing, but a critical bottleneck is verification—ensuring the design works flawlessly before costly production. A single, undetected bug can have catastrophic consequences, as illustrated by the infamous 1994 Intel Pentium FDIV bug. A flaw in the floating-point division unit forced a recall costing $475 million. Unlike software, chips cannot be easily patched after manufacture, making "first-time success" paramount. However, industry surveys show only 24% of chip projects achieve this; over three-quarters require at least one costly re-spin due to design flaws. Verification has thus become the dominant phase, consuming up to 70% of the design cycle. The core challenge is a "verification impossible triangle" between high performance, good debuggability, and low cost. Exhaustively verifying a modern CPU core could take 15,000 years with software simulation, or 30 years with advanced hardware emulation—timeframes utterly impractical for development. Despite being essential, verification is often seen as unglamorous "dirty work," receiving less academic attention than fields like AI. Shi and his team are tackling this by developing an agile verification research framework called ENCORE, based on FPGA technology, to improve verification efficiency and debug capability. Beyond research, Shi engages in public science communication through long-form video content, aiming to demystify chip technology, AI, and computer science. He argues for the value of pursuing "hard and long-term" endeavors, whether in the meticulous world of chip verification or in creating substantive educational content, believing such sustained effort is likely the right path forward.

marsbit1 h fa

How Difficult is Chip Making? A Division Error Costs 475 Million Dollars

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片