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

marsbitPublished on 2026-04-22Last updated on 2026-04-22

Abstract

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.

Related Questions

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.

Related Reads

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

Decoding Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure: The Reality Over the past year, I've been building infrastructure for the Agent economy, engaging with major players like Stripe, Visa, Coinbase, Google, and dozens of startups. A clear conclusion emerges: true, large-scale demand does not yet exist. Startups face structural challenges. Data points illustrate this gap. Stripe's Agent commerce platform has over 1,000 merchants but only single-digit transacting agents. Visa's Agent payment token requires 9-month KYC and a $250M revenue threshold, accessible only to giants like Amazon. On-chain analysis reveals actual daily Agent transaction volume is around $17k, half of which are test transactions. The article analyzes four potential markets: **1. Agent-to-Merchant (A2M):** Current AI shopping UX is often inferior to traditional e-commerce for visual, comparison-heavy purchases (clothing, electronics). Chat interfaces are a step back. Real merchant interest is defensive "Agent Engine Optimization," fearing future obsolescence, not current demand. Potential exists in high-frequency, low-decision purchases (e.g., food delivery) or simplifying terrible UX (complex checkouts, non-native shoppers), but these require massive consumer distribution channels dominated by giants like DoorDash and Amazon. **2. Agent-to-API (A2A):** Developers already have subscriptions and billing for core APIs (compute, data). The argument for micro-payments via crypto for sub-dollar API calls is addressed by pre-paid balances today. The deeper issue is supplier resistance; major SaaS firms rely on enterprise contracts, not fractional cent pricing. Opportunity lies in the long tail of niche services, but this is a smaller market catering to developers, a historically low-paying group. **3. Agent-to-Agent (A2A):** This remains a theoretical long-term vision with near-zero current transaction volume. It involves unique challenges: discovery, trust, negotiation, dispute resolution. When it materializes, it will require a fundamentally new settlement infrastructure for high-speed, variable-value, multi-party transactions. It's a real long-term bet, but not the current market. **4. Agent-to-Finance (A2F):** This is the only category with existing, paying demand. Integrating AI into financial workflows (trading, portfolio management) is a natural evolution and enables new capabilities like autonomous rebalancing. However, competition favors incumbents with regulatory licenses, compliance infrastructure, and existing client relationships. **The Real Issue:** Why is infrastructure still being built? Incumbents can afford long-term bets, and payment companies see every problem as a nail for their payment hammer. However, payment is just one piece. The core challenge is *coordination*—orchestrating work between Agents and humans, verifying outcomes, and settling results. Payment is part of settlement, which is part of coordination. Companies that solve the coordination problem will subsume payments, not the other way around. Startups lack the infinite runway of giants and must find today's real market, which, after a year of exploration, lies outside these four categories—in an area with real, growing, and underserved activity.

marsbit28m ago

Uncovering the Truth About Agent Commerce, Payments, and Infrastructure

marsbit28m ago

Kalshi, MTS, and a16z's Ambition

The article "Kalshi, MTS, and a16z's Ambition" explores prediction markets as a focal point of excitement in 2025 for investors, crypto enthusiasts, and media. It traces their intellectual lineage from Friedrich Hayek's ideas on dispersed knowledge and market coordination to Robin Hanson's Logarithmic Market Scoring Rule (LMSR), which incentivizes truthful information sharing. The piece argues that a16z's significant investment in prediction market platform Kalshi (valued at $220B) transcends mere financial speculation. a16z frames prediction markets as a new form of "media" that provides "presence"—a way for individuals to actively engage with and influence world events through financial stakes, countering postmodern detachment. By wagering on outcomes, users become "super observers," and the market's aggregated probabilities gain authoritative power to define event truth and importance. The article uses media company MTS ("Monitoring The Situation") as a case study of a16z's "new media" strategy: rapidly producing high-intensity, multi-format content to "take over the timeline." However, prediction markets like Kalshi are presented as the ultimate piece in this media empire. Their real-money, crowd-sourced probabilities possess a unique "reality distortion field" and perceived objectivity, potentially swaying public opinion and granting a private company unprecedented interpretive power over reality. Ultimately, Kalshi's immense valuation is attributed not just to its exchange model, but to its role as a foundational component in a16z's envisioned new media landscape, where prediction markets define narrative and truth.

链捕手29m ago

Kalshi, MTS, and a16z's Ambition

链捕手29m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片