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

marsbitPubblicato 2026-02-16Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-02-16

Introduzione

On-chain lending, which started as an experimental concept around 2017, has grown into a market exceeding $100 billion, primarily driven by stablecoin borrowing backed by crypto-native collateral. It enables liquidity release, leveraged positions, and yield arbitrage. The key advantage lies not in creativity but in validation through real demand and product-market fit. A major strength of on-chain lending is its significantly lower cost—around 5% for stablecoin loans compared to 7–12% plus fees in centralized crypto lending. This efficiency stems from capital aggregation in open, permissionless systems where transparency, composability, and automation foster competition. Capital moves faster, inefficiencies are exposed, and innovation spreads rapidly without traditional overhead. The system’s resilience is evident during bear markets, where capital continuously reprices itself in a transparent environment. The current limitation is not a lack of capital but a shortage of diverse, productive collateral. The future involves integrating crypto-native assets with tokenized real-world value to expand lending’s reach and efficiency. Traditional lending remains expensive due to structural inefficiencies: bloated origination, misaligned incentives, manual servicing, and defective risk feedback mechanisms. Decentralized finance solves this by breaking cost structures through full automation, transparency, and software-native processes. When on-chain lending becomes end-to-end cheap...

On-chain lending began around 2017, initially 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 unlock liquidity through long positions, execute leverage loops, and engage in yield arbitrage. What matters 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 policy 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 by decentralized finance.

Why On-Chain Lending is Cheaper

On-chain lending is cheaper not because it is 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 handling fees, service charges, and various surcharges. When conditions favor borrowers, choosing centralized lending is not only not conservative, but even 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 cases of existing primitives like Aave, without the need for 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 transformation 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 effects replace local duplication. Excess capacity is transformed into dynamic utilization. Change initially looks poor. It serves non-core users (e.g., targeting crypto lending, not mainstream use cases), competes on price before quality improves, and doesn't look serious until it scales 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 unfamiliar. Stablecoins didn't touch bank accounts. None of this 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, and a more important dynamic is exposed. 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 simply 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 a store of economic energy. 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 become the catalyst for replacing the backend of old finance with decentralized finance.

What's Wrong with Lending Today

Lending is expensive today not because capital is scarce. Capital is abundant. The clearing rate for quality capital is 5% to 7%. The clearing rate for risk capital is 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 the risk. Brokers do not bear default responsibility. Loan originators immediately sell off risk exposure. Everyone gets paid regardless of the outcome. The flaw in the feedback mechanism is the true cost of lending.

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 rather than progress. As a result, lending still looks like an industrial-era product hardwired into 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 user experience 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 significantly cheaper than traditional lending in end-to-end operations, adoption is not a question; it is inevitable. Aave emerges in this context, capable of serving as the foundational capital layer for a new financial backend, catering to the entire lending spectrum from fintech companies to institutional lenders to consumers.

Lending will become the most empowering financial product, simply because the cost structure of decentralized finance will enable fast-moving capital to flow into the applications that need it most. Abundant capital will spawn vast opportunities.

Domande pertinenti

QWhat is the core reason that makes on-chain lending cheaper than traditional or centralized crypto lending platforms?

AOn-chain lending is cheaper because it eliminates layers of financial waste through open capital aggregation, transparency, composability, and automation, which drive competition and efficiency, reducing costs to around 5% for stablecoin loans compared to 7-12% in centralized systems.

QHow does the cost structure advantage of on-chain lending benefit borrowers and capital allocators?

AThe cost structure advantages, derived from automation and reduced overhead, are passed on to capital allocators and borrowers, resulting in lower interest rates, faster execution, and global accessibility.

QWhat is the current limitation for the growth of on-chain lending according to the article?

AThe main limitation is not a lack of capital but a shortage of borrowable collateral, as most on-chain lending currently recycles the same collateral for similar strategies, though this is seen as temporary.

QWhy has traditional lending remained expensive and inefficient despite abundant capital?

ATraditional lending is expensive due to inefficiencies in loan origination (e.g., customer acquisition costs, outdated credit models), manual servicing, misaligned incentives, and flawed feedback mechanisms, where risks are not properly priced or borne by those responsible.

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

ATo scale globally, on-chain lending must absorb real economic value by combining autonomous crypto-native assets with tokenized real-world rights and obligations, aiming to replace the backend of old finance with DeFi's low-cost structure.

Letture associate

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

"AI Membership: The Hidden Cost Pushing Workers Toward 'Poverty'" The widespread corporate push for AI adoption is creating a hidden financial burden for employees. Companies, from giants like Alibaba to small firms, are mandating AI use, often tying token consumption to KPIs, but frequently refuse to cover the costs. Workers are forced to pay for subscriptions out of pocket to stay competitive and avoid being replaced. Front-end developer Long Shen spends up to 2000 RMB monthly on tools like Cursor and ChatGPT Plus, seeing it as a necessary 3% salary investment to handle 90% of his coding tasks. While it boosted his performance and led to promotions, he now faces idle time at work, pretending to be busy. Designer Peng Peng navigates strict company firewalls by using personal devices and accounts for AI image generation tools like Midjourney, spending hundreds monthly without reimbursement, while her boss demands faster, more numerous revisions. The pressure creates workplace anxiety and suspicion. Programmer Li Huahua, after a friend's experience of raised KPIs following AI success, fears being branded a "traitor" for using it yet worries about falling behind if she doesn't. The dynamic allows management to demand results without understanding the tools or covering expenses, treating employees like AI "agents." While some, like entrepreneur Jin Tu, find high value in paid AI, building entire systems and winning competitions, for most, it's a trap. Free tools like Kimi and Doubao are introducing fees, closing off alternatives. The initial efficiency gains individual advantage, but as AI becomes ubiquitous, the personal edge disappears, workloads increase, and a cycle of dependency begins. Workers like Long Shen realize they cannot maintain AI-generated code without AI, making stopping harder than continuing to pay. The tool promising liberation is instead becoming a compulsory, costly chain in the modern workplace.

marsbit7 min fa

The Waged Worker Driven to Poverty by AI Subscriptions

marsbit7 min fa

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

"SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire and Its Heirs" explores the unconventional succession narrative within SK Group, South Korea's second-largest conglomerate, following SK Hynix's dramatic market rise. Unlike traditional chaebol scripts prioritizing the eldest son, ownership, and political marriages, Chairman Choi Tae-won's three children from his first marriage are charting distinct paths. The eldest daughter, Choi Yun-jeong, is considered the most visible candidate. With a background in biology, consulting, and a PhD, she holds executive roles at SK Bioscience and SK Inc.'s growth strategy unit, focusing on biopharma and new businesses. Her marriage is to an AI infrastructure entrepreneur, not a traditional chaebol heir. The second daughter, Choi Min-jeong, took a unique route by voluntarily serving as a South Korean naval officer, including a tour in the Gulf of Aden. She later worked on policy and strategy for SK Hynix in Washington D.C. before co-founding an AI-driven healthcare startup in San Francisco. She married a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, connecting the family to U.S. defense and policy networks. The son, Choi In-geun, who has Type 1 diabetes, followed a more classic preparatory path with a physics degree and a stint at SK E&S but left to join McKinsey's Seoul office. He remains publicly silent and holds no SK shares, defying the traditional "crown prince" archetype. Their paths unfold against the backdrop of their parents' high-profile, contentious divorce and a record-setting asset division lawsuit. The article argues that as SK Hynix becomes a geopolitical asset in the AI era, the conventional rules of chaebol inheritance are changing. The heirs are being groomed not simply to take over, but to navigate a complex global landscape defined by AI, biotech, geopolitics, and policy, forging legitimacy through their own expertise and networks rather than birth order alone.

marsbit15 min fa

SK Hynix's Trillion-Won Empire: The Successors

marsbit15 min fa

BitMart Research Institute Weekly Highlights: A Comprehensive Review of Macro Environment, Crude Oil, AI Tech Stocks, and Crypto Market

**Weekly Market Review: Macro, Oil, AI Tech Stocks & Crypto Market** **Macroeconomic & Traditional Finance** The April U.S. Non-Farm Payrolls report of 115K new jobs exceeded expectations, but the data's quality was questioned. Growth was heavily concentrated in healthcare, while other sectors contracted, and manufacturing employment turned negative. A statistical model accounted for a large portion of the gains, conflicting with household survey data showing a loss of 226K jobs. Meanwhile, AI's impact on jobs is emerging, with information sector roles declining, though overall unemployment remains at ~4.3%. Oil prices hovered near $100 per barrel. Global oil buffer inventories have drawn down significantly, supporting prices, but high costs are suppressing demand. China's recent reduction in crude imports acted as a market stabilizer. Geopolitically, the U.S. and Iran are likely to reach a tentative agreement to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and avoid price spikes. For AI tech stocks, short-term prospects are mixed. A potential SpaceX IPO in June could pressure current index heavyweights like Nvidia, while smaller components might benefit. The mid-term focus shifts to Q2 earnings, emphasizing AI's return on investment. Long-term risks include potential election policy shifts and massive IPOs from companies like OpenAI, which could test the sector's sustainability. **Crypto Market & Ecosystem** Crypto markets rose moderately, with BTC climbing from ~$77K to ~$82K, driven by improved risk sentiment. Spot trading volumes remain low, but buying pressure is evident. ETF inflows continued (~$791M last week). However, institutional purchases of BTC and ETH were more modest than expected. The derivatives market shows lingering bearish bets, particularly on alts and ETH. A key trend is the "dual-track" model where projects pursue public listings for traditional funding while also building their own blockchains/tokens to capture crypto liquidity, as seen with Circle's ARC chain. Stablecoins and institutional chains present significant future opportunities. *Disclaimer: This is market analysis, not investment advice.*

marsbit50 min fa

BitMart Research Institute Weekly Highlights: A Comprehensive Review of Macro Environment, Crude Oil, AI Tech Stocks, and Crypto Market

marsbit50 min fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片