Aave Mired in a Crisis of Confidence: Service Providers Exit En Masse, Failures in Technology, Governance, and Risk Control

marsbitPublicado em 2026-04-10Última atualização em 2026-04-10

Resumo

Aave, a leading DeFi lending protocol, is facing a severe internal crisis marked by the departure of key service providers, raising concerns about its governance, security, and future direction. The crisis began when Chaos Labs, the protocol's long-time risk management provider, terminated its relationship with Aave. The firm cited financial losses, the exit of other major contributors, and fundamental disagreements over the risk architecture of the upcoming Aave V4. Aave Labs declined Chaos Labs' demands for a significant fee increase and exclusive control over key functions like risk management and oracle services. This exit followed the departure of two other critical partners. BGD Labs, the primary technical contributor to Aave V3, accused Aave Labs of forcing an aggressive transition to V4 by limiting V3 development and devaluing its work. Subsequently, the Aave Chan Initiative (ACI), a major governance service provider, announced its planned exit, criticizing Aave Labs for centralizing power and controlling a large portion of voting tokens. The conflict highlights a central paradox within DAOs: the tension between founder-led vision and decentralized governance, and between long-term protocol health and short-term capital interests. Aave Labs is pushing for a more integrated and efficient "Aave Will Win" model with V4, arguing it is necessary for competing at an institutional level. However, critics warn this centralization comes at the cost of the protocol's decentr...

Author: Jae, PANews

Rather than external pressures from the bear market, Aave's internal issues have instead birthed a "black swan."

Aave, long perched atop the lending sector throne, is experiencing the most severe ecosystem shock since its inception. There was no hacker attack, no code vulnerability—only a loss of control and a clash of interests.

From the decisive departure of its technical pillar BGD Labs, to the public split with governance pioneer ACI (Aave Chan Initiative), and now the official severance of ties with risk management steward Chaos Labs, a "great retreat" of service providers is underway.

The depth of this struggle far exceeds a mere partnership dispute; it triggers the ultimate paradox of a DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization): the opposition between founder's will and distributed governance, the conflict between protocol long-termism and capital's short-term profit-seeking, and the balance between decentralized faith and centralized efficiency for a blue-chip protocol during its scaling phase.

Can Aave continue to win?

Chaos Labs Abandons the Risk Management Gate: What's the Hidden Reason?

On April 7th, Chaos Labs, deeply involved with Aave V2/V3 for three years and achieving "zero major bad debt," announced it was cutting ties with Aave. The exit of this top-tier risk control firm directly hit Aave's security red line.

Chaos Labs cited three reasons: long-term losses, the departure of key contributors BGD Labs and ACI, and fundamental disagreements with Aave Labs on risk management philosophy in the context of the Aave V4 launch.

The focal point of the conflict is V4's "Hub-and-Spoke" architecture: Chaos Labs pointed out that while this design improves capital efficiency, it also exponentially amplifies risk. In an environment with unclear legal liability definitions, the risk control team would need to double their workload to maintain both the massive V3 and V4 systems simultaneously.

Aave Labs expressed respect for this decision and thanked them for their years of contribution, stating that the protocol's smart contracts and network deployments remain unaffected. However, the parting of ways had underlying reasons.

Aave Labs disclosed that it had engaged in multiple rounds of negotiations with Chaos Labs regarding a renewal proposal. It supported increasing their risk management fee from the current level to $5 million but did not support directly raising it to $8 million without subsequent附加条款 (fùjiā tiáokuǎn - additional clauses). It also explicitly opposed three exclusivity clauses: appointing Chaos Labs as the sole risk manager, replacing Chainlink with the Chaos Labs oracle, and setting the unaudited Chaos Labs treasury as the default treasury for all B2B integrations.

Simply put, Chaos Labs wanted to expand its control and commercial interests. But for a DeFi protocol, over-reliance on a single supplier for risk management significantly increases systemic risk and weakens the protocol's own governance independence. For Aave, the potential risk was too great.

Furthermore, in March of this year, the Aave CAPO oracle managed by Chaos Labs suffered an on-chain configuration error, leading to the undervaluation of wstETH by approximately 2.85% and mistakenly triggering the forced liquidation of healthy positions worth about $27 million.

Aave Labs emphasized it will continue to adhere to a two-tier risk management model and introduce a third-tier technical risk management mechanism led by Aave Labs. During the transition, LlamaRisk will take over more risk coverage duties from Chaos Labs, with Aave Labs supporting its team expansion and budget, and providing engineering and analytical resources to ensure a smooth handover.

Regarding Aave V4, its architecture introduces isolated risk markets, new liquidation logic, and governance-controlled parameter mechanisms through Spokes, allowing the DAO to manage risks across different markets and assets more granularly. In the short term, Aave Labs will work closely with LlamaRisk to ensure a smooth risk management transition and unaffected protocol operation.

Technology and Governance Also Falter, Internal Risks at Aave Intensify

Beyond the security front, Aave's technology and governance have also faltered in the past two months.

On April 1st, Aave V3 technical service provider BGD Labs announced the termination of all technical contributions—this was no April Fool's joke. As the main development team for V3, BGD accused Aave Labs of "artificially limiting" V3 feature development and "malignantly devaluing" its worth to强行推行 (qiángxíng tuīxíng - forcibly push) the immature V4, even using parameters to force user migration.

BGD stated that V3 contributed 98% of Aave's code and nearly all its TVL, generating over $100 million in annual revenue, and was the "jewel" in the protocol's crown. Aave Labs closed V4 development to external teams, excluding them. BGD Labs had neither a voice nor fair compensation and could only protest this "radical transition" and irresponsibility towards user asset security by leaving.

The governance service provider ACI, led by Marc Zeller, also plans to exit in July, directly triggered by BGD Labs' departure. Marc Zeller blasted Aave Labs for initiating a "slow-motion coup": on-chain data shows it controls 23% of the AAVE token supply, with its whale voting power overwhelming community proposals.

ACI's exit signals Aave's governance moving from "checks and balances" towards "centralization," with third-party service providers reduced to mere ornaments.

Although Aave was once a model of distributed collaboration in the DeFi market—Aave Labs setting the course, third-party service providers handling development, governance, and risk control, with multiple parties complementing each other to support its leading lending position—cracks are now increasingly appearing in this golden system that operated for years.

Growing Pains or Fatal Illness? Aave Faces a Test of Capital and Trust

Amidst this complex melee, the interests of the involved parties paint starkly different pictures.

From the perspective of Aave Labs and founder Stani Kulechov, they hope to transform the protocol from a loose multi-party collaborative body into a more cohesive and efficient closed-loop ecosystem through V4 and the "Aave Will Win" framework.

The business logic behind this transformation is: DeFi has entered a scaling phase where loose collaboration alone can hardly meet institutional demands and global financial competition.

By concentrating resources on developing high-margin products and unifying brand ownership, Aave can improve execution efficiency, reduce fragmented decision-making, and enhance the value capture ability of the AAVE token.

Of course, this is also a problem mature DeFi protocols will face during scaling, and Aave's internal turmoil, as the lending leader, is magnified, becoming a mirror for the entire DeFi governance model.

However, this efficiency gain through "strongman rule" is seen as coming at the cost of the DAO's decentralized credibility.

Service providers essentially rely on professional skills to obtain funding from the DAO. When Aave Labs tries to marginalize them, or the compensation provided is insufficient to offset the growing legal and operational risks, they will inevitably choose to leave. This also reveals that under the current DAO service provider model, even top-tier teams face unsustainable business models.

For Aave, will the service provider exodus be short-term growing pains or a long-term fatal illness?

From an optimistic view, the wave of service provider departures might be a bout of "growing pains" during Aave's transformation.

Streamlined Decision-Making: With multiple external stakeholders gone, Aave Labs can advance V4 more unimpeded, shortening product launch cycles in the face of fierce market competition;
Frontend Revenue Recirculation: If the "Aave Will Win" proposal ultimately achieves 100% frontend revenue returning to the DAO, the AAVE token will transform from a mere "governance token" into a genuine "revenue certificate";
Unified Technical Paradigm: V4's "Hub-and-Spoke" architecture solves the multi-chain fragmentation issue of V3. By unifying liquidity hubs, Aave is poised to gain a foothold in the RWA and institutional credit markets.

However, these positive expectations are largely based on the assumption that "everything goes smoothly." The realistic negative impacts are more pressing.

Security Downgrade: V4's complexity requires stricter risk control mechanisms. After losing Chaos Labs, Aave now relies solely on LlamaRisk as its primary risk control service provider, creating a single point of failure that greatly increases systemic risk during extreme market conditions.
Experience Vacuum: The departing service providers take with them three years of historical operational data and experience. If the protocol encounters a sudden incident, newly接手 (jiēshǒu - taking over) teams like LlamaRisk might respond slowly due to lack of deep involvement;
Reputation Damage: Aave Labs' intervention in voting through substantial token holdings is essentially透支 (tòuzhī -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支 -透支极 (tòuzhī - overdrawing/spending future credibility) the protocol's credibility assets. If the DAO loses its checks and balances mechanism, its appeal to new developers will be greatly diminished.

These negative impacts are also raising concerns among capital. Although Aave has not experienced very serious security incidents in the past, the uncertainty of risk is rising, and the community is beginning to question its execution and risk control capabilities. Some bluntly state, "When the old crew disembarks en masse and the new crew isn't familiar with the route yet, don't put all your assets on board."

Currently, Aave stands at a critical crossroads.

Perguntas relacionadas

QWhat are the main reasons behind the recent departure of key service providers from Aave?

AThe main reasons include disagreements over the V4 upgrade's risk management model, concerns over centralization of power by Aave Labs, insufficient compensation for service providers, and fundamental differences in vision for the protocol's future.

QHow does the departure of Chaos Labs impact Aave's risk management framework?

AChaos Labs' departure creates a significant gap in Aave's risk management, potentially increasing systemic risk. It leaves LlamaRisk as the primary risk service provider, raising concerns about single-point vulnerabilities and the loss of three years of operational experience and data.

QWhat is the 'Hub-and-Spoke' architecture in Aave V4, and why is it controversial?

AThe 'Hub-and-Spoke' architecture is a new design in Aave V4 intended to improve capital efficiency by creating a central liquidity hub connected to various isolated risk markets (spokes). It is controversial because critics, like Chaos Labs, argue it exponentially amplifies risk and creates a much larger, more complex workload for risk managers.

QWhat accusations did BGD Labs make against Aave Labs when announcing their departure?

ABGD Labs accused Aave Labs of 'artificially limiting' V3 features, 'maliciously devaluing' its contributions, and forcing user migration to the new V4. They claimed they were excluded from V4 development and left with no say in the process and no fair compensation.

QWhat is the 'Aave Will Win' framework, and what are its potential benefits and drawbacks according to the article?

AThe 'Aave Will Win' framework is a strategic vision led by Aave Labs to transform the protocol into a more cohesive and efficient ecosystem. Potential benefits include streamlined decision-making, 100% front-end revenue returning to the DAO (making the AAVE token a yield-bearing asset), and a unified technical paradigm for scaling. The main drawback is the perceived sacrifice of the protocol's decentralized credibility and governance, leading to a 'centralized' power structure.

Leituras Relacionadas

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

When launching a crypto payment business, obtaining the necessary licenses is the crucial first step. However, the second, and arguably more critical, step is designing a comprehensive operational framework that forms a coherent business loop. This loop must be clearly understood and executable by all stakeholders: banks, payment partners, exchanges, on-chain analytics providers, regulators, and your internal team. Many projects mistakenly believe a single license permits all operations. Licenses merely grant entry; they don't define how the specific business functions. The real challenge lies in detailing every aspect of the workflow. This involves clarifying the customer base, the flow of fiat and crypto assets, the settlement process, and establishing clear lines of responsibility for risks like AML compliance, sanctions screening, chargebacks, and regulatory inquiries. A robust framework must answer seven core questions: Who are the clients and merchants? Who collects fiat and crypto? Who handles conversion and custody? And who is ultimately accountable for compliance and risk management? Projects often fail not from a lack of licensing, but during due diligence when they cannot convincingly explain these operational details. Therefore, beyond securing licenses, the priority must be constructing a closed-loop system. This system ensures the business model is transparent, risks are managed, responsibilities are delineated, contracts are aligned, and the entire process is comprehensible to partners and regulators. The true competitive edge in crypto payments lies not in acquiring a license quickly, but in integrating licensing, banking, compliance, and operations into a sustainable and executable whole.

marsbitHá 33m

When Doing Cryptocurrency Payment, the First Thing is Licenses, What is the Second?

marsbitHá 33m

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Arthur Hayes argues that the current AI market is a bubble poised to burst, which will exert downward pressure on the crypto market in the near term. The core trigger is rising oil prices due to the US-Iran conflict and a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. Higher energy costs directly increase the operational expenses of AI data centers, squeezing profit margins for companies like Google, Anthropic, and OpenAI. Hayes predicts that persistent inflation from high oil prices will force Trump, in a bid to win the November election, to turn public sentiment against the AI industry. He may propose regulations and taxes on data centers and AI companies to appeal to voters concerned about costs and job displacement. Such political rhetoric could shatter market confidence. Furthermore, the market is unlikely to healthily absorb the massive concurrent IPOs of SpaceX, Anthropic, and OpenAI, which together seek valuations in the trillions. The combination of soaring energy costs, overwhelming equity supply, and negative political pressure will puncture the AI bubble. Hayes notes that nearly all new USD liquidity since 2022 has flowed into AI, leaving crypto like Bitcoin behind. When the AI bubble bursts, liquidity will contract sharply, pulling down all risk assets, including cryptocurrencies. In response, Hayes's fund, Maelstrom, has sold all AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. It maintains core positions in Bitcoin and Ethereum while increasing exposure to energy sector equities, betting on rising oil and gas prices. He expects Bitcoin to bottom after the AI-led market decline, before rallying again with future monetary easing.

Foresight NewsHá 46m

Arthur Hayes Analysis: AI Bubble Nears Burst, Crypto Market Faces Short-Term Pressure

Foresight NewsHá 46m

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

After To C and To B, the Next Wave is To A: Serving AI Agents In a recent quarterly earnings call, Meituan's Wang Xing introduced a new concept: To A (To Agent), signifying that future business services will increasingly target AI Agents as primary clients, not just consumers or merchants. This shift implies that internet giants must now consider how to make their services more appealing for AI Agents to recommend, fundamentally altering traditional distribution logic. This "To A era" is prompting an unusual trend of alliances among major tech companies. Unlike previous competitive battles, firms like Meituan, Tencent, JD.com, Huawei, OPPO, and OpenAI are rapidly forming partnerships. The reason is strategic: as AI Agents become the primary user interface, handling tasks from a single command (e.g., "Book a Japanese restaurant for tomorrow"), the risk for platforms is being bypassed entirely. Companies are positioning themselves within this new value chain. Three primary strategies are emerging: 1. **Super-Entry Points + Service Providers:** Platforms like Tencent's Yuanbao, WeChat, and ChatGPT aim to be the first-stop Agent, integrating various services (food delivery, shopping, travel) from partners like Meituan and JD.com. 2. **Apps as Callable Services:** Companies like Meituan, JD.com, and Uber are ensuring their core services remain accessible and callable by external Agents, shifting from front-end apps to back-end capabilities. 3. **System-Level Agent Entry Points:** Smartphone makers (Huawei, Honor, OPPO) are leveraging their OS-level AI assistants to control the initial user command, redistributing it to relevant service apps. While alliances offer mutual benefit—entry points gain service capabilities, and service providers gain traffic—inherent conflicts of interest exist. A dominant Agent platform could eventually attempt to connect directly with suppliers (restaurants, hotels), bypassing current aggregators like Meituan or Ctrip. Other unresolved challenges include the potential for Agent recommendations to become a new form of paid ranking and unclear accountability for faulty recommendations. The current rush to form alliances is a defensive move by service providers to secure their position before the landscape solidifies. In this To A-driven restructuring, the greatest risk is not losing the race but failing to hear the starting gun.

marsbitHá 55m

To C, To B, and the Next Big Thing Called To A

marsbitHá 55m

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

As humanoid robots become increasingly lifelike, they confront a significant psychological barrier known as the "Uncanny Valley Effect," a concept proposed by Japanese roboticist Masahiro Mori in 1970. This phenomenon describes a dip in human comfort and acceptance when robots appear almost, but not perfectly, human. Minor imperfections in facial expressions, eye movements, or skin texture trigger a subconscious sense of unease, as the brain detects something trying, yet failing, to mimic a person. Examples range from the controversial human-like robot Sophia to animated characters in films like *The Polar Express*. The effect poses a key design challenge for robotics companies. Some, like Boston Dynamics, avoid it entirely by creating highly capable but visibly mechanical robots. Others, like Hanson Robotics, push for greater human likeness despite the risk. For consumer robots, especially in homes, most manufacturers opt for stylized or clearly mechanical designs to ensure broader acceptance. While the Uncanny Valley remains a powerful force, its impact may diminish over time through technological advancements that achieve near-perfect realism or through generational familiarity as people grow accustomed to interacting with humanoid machines. Ultimately, navigating this psychological frontier requires as much understanding of human perception as of robotics technology itself.

marsbitHá 56m

The More Lifelike the Robot, the More Terrifying? Unveiling the 'Uncanny Valley Effect' in the Era of Humanoid Robots

marsbitHá 56m

Over $31 Million Stolen from Humanity, Is the Team Behind It Paving the Way for a New Project?

The article reports a major security incident involving Humanity Protocol (H), resulting in over $31 million stolen. The team attributes the hack to a private key leak from a Humanity Foundation member, leading to a rapid sale of H tokens and a 90% price drop. However, prominent on-chain investigator ZachXBT suggests the event might be an "exit scam" orchestrated by the team, rather than an external hack. This suspicion is fueled by the team's controversial history, including past management failures, legal issues, and previous scandals like outsourced technology and problematic airdrops. Further investigation reveals that the core team behind Humanity is already involved with a new project called "Everything," which recently secured funding. This has led to community speculation that the alleged hack is a deliberate scheme to abandon the H project while shifting focus and resources to their new venture, leaving investors to bear the losses. The article questions whether this is a genuine security failure or a premeditated "rug pull" strategy.

Odaily星球日报Há 2h

Over $31 Million Stolen from Humanity, Is the Team Behind It Paving the Way for a New Project?

Odaily星球日报Há 2h

Trading

Spot

Futuros

Artigos em Destaque

Como comprar AAVE

Bem-vindo à HTX.com!Tornámos a compra de Aave Protocol (AAVE) simples e conveniente.Segue o nosso guia passo a passo para iniciar a tua jornada no mundo das criptos.Passo 1: cria a tua conta HTXUtiliza o teu e-mail ou número de telefone para te inscreveres numa conta gratuita na HTX.Desfruta de um processo de inscrição sem complicações e desbloqueia todas as funcionalidades.Obter a minha contaPasso 2: vai para Comprar Cripto e escolhe o teu método de pagamentoCartão de crédito/débito: usa o teu visa ou mastercard para comprar Aave Protocol (AAVE) instantaneamente.Saldo: usa os fundos da tua conta HTX para transacionar sem problemas.Terceiros: adicionamos métodos de pagamento populares, como Google Pay e Apple Pay, para aumentar a conveniência.P2P: transaciona diretamente com outros utilizadores na HTX.Mercado de balcão (OTC): oferecemos serviços personalizados e taxas de câmbio competitivas para os traders.Passo 3: armazena teu Aave Protocol (AAVE)Depois de comprar o teu Aave Protocol (AAVE), armazena-o na tua conta HTX.Alternativamente, podes enviá-lo para outro lugar através de transferência blockchain ou usá-lo para transacionar outras criptomoedas.Passo 4: transaciona Aave Protocol (AAVE)Transaciona facilmente Aave Protocol (AAVE) no mercado à vista da HTX.Acede simplesmente à tua conta, seleciona o teu par de trading, executa as tuas transações e monitoriza em tempo real.Oferecemos uma experiência de fácil utilização tanto para principiantes como para traders experientes.

415 Visualizações TotaisPublicado em {updateTime}Atualizado em 2026.06.02

Discussões

Bem-vindo à Comunidade HTX. Aqui, pode manter-se informado sobre os mais recentes desenvolvimentos da plataforma e obter acesso a análises profissionais de mercado. As opiniões dos utilizadores sobre o preço de AAVE (AAVE) são apresentadas abaixo.