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

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit43m ago

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit43m ago

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Elon Musk's much-anticipated "WeChat-like" app, XChat, has officially launched after multiple delays. The initial review reveals a product that falls short of expectations, offering an experience largely similar to X Platform's (formerly Twitter) direct messages, despite being marketed as an encrypted communication tool. Key observations from the first-day test include: 1. The app's promoted "end-to-end encryption" and its claimed relation to Bitcoin's architecture were criticized by experts as a superficial attempt to capitalize on crypto buzz, with no real technical connection. 2. Musk's vision of an ad-free "secure communication system" is technically met, but only because the app is currently extremely basic, featuring only a single chat interface. 3. A promised anti-screenshot feature appears inconsistent; it works in X Platform group chats but fails within the XChat app itself, where screenshots still capture avatars. 4. The app supports 45 languages and has a 16+ age rating, indicating a broader tolerance for content compared to WeChat's 13+ rating. 5. A puzzling login process requires users to verify the email associated with their X account. 6. The touted encryption" feels minimal in practice, with its presence only indicated by a simple "Encrypted - Yes" label on messages. 7. Disappearing message timers for groups can be set from 5 minutes to 4 weeks, with the timer starting upon being read by a user. 8. Group invite links are shared with X Platform groups. 9. Group size limits are planned to be increased, aiming for 1000 members, a move that has drawn user criticism. 10. The app offers 8 different colored icons, and its chat bubbles are notably similar to WeChat's. Message deletion options mimic Telegram's. Crucially, many pre-announced features like importing X contacts, integrating Grok AI, X Money payments, and Cashtags are not yet available. The initial release is seen as a bare-bones and underwhelming first step.

Odaily星球日报1h ago

First Day Review of "Musk's WeChat" XChat: Even Worse Than Expected

Odaily星球日报1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片