The Structure, Risks, and New Cycle of the On-Chain Lending Market

marsbitОпубликовано 2026-01-28Обновлено 2026-01-28

Введение

On-chain lending is evolving from a tool primarily for leverage into a fundamental infrastructure for capital allocation, now representing 53.54% of the total DeFi TVL at approximately $64.3 billion. Aave dominates the sector with around 50% market share. The integration of Real-World Assets (RWA), such as credit assets and U.S. Treasuries, is emerging as a key growth driver, supported by improving macroeconomic conditions and regulatory clarity. However, the market faces significant risks including liquidity volatility, collateral liquidations, credit defaults, and cross-chain security vulnerabilities. Future trends point toward institutional adoption, tokenization of securities, fixed and floating rate products, and a bifurcation between compliant and high-risk lending layers. The sector is transitioning into a mature component of the global financial system.

Author: CoinW Research Institute

Key Takeaways

On-chain lending functionality is gradually transforming, evolving from an early tool primarily for leverage into a fundamental infrastructure for capital allocation. On-chain lending has become a crucial component of the DeFi ecosystem. Currently, the TVL of on-chain lending protocols is approximately $64.3 billion, accounting for about 53.54% of the total DeFi TVL.

Aave has become the leading protocol in the on-chain lending sector, with a TVL of about $32.9 billion, representing roughly 50% of the total lending sector TVL. Meanwhile, protocols like Morpho continue to consolidate their market share, resulting in a competitive landscape characterized by one dominant player and several strong contenders.

Credit-based assets have become a significant part of on-chain Real World Assets (RWA). As more types of debt instruments are introduced on-chain and institutional demand for compliant, traceable collateral increases, RWA lending is poised to become another major growth engine. Simultaneously, improvements in both the macroeconomic monetary environment and regulatory frameworks are collectively reducing the costs associated with capital flow and compliance, creating smoother external conditions for market development.

On-chain lending protocols also face multiple risks. Firstly, they are highly dependent on collateral value and market liquidity, making them susceptible to liquidations during market volatility. Secondly, the introduction of unsecured lending and RWA increases credit default and counterparty risks. Additionally, over-reliance on token incentives can artificially inflate scale, and cross-chain expansion exposes vulnerabilities in bridge security. Therefore, on-chain lending protocols must balance security, liquidity, and compliance while pursuing growth.

With the gradual tokenization of securities and the entry of compliant assets like U.S. Treasuries onto the chain, on-chain lending is evolving from a crypto-native financing tool into mainstream financial infrastructure, with a more robust collateral foundation. In this process, inter-institutional on-chain lending is expected to be a significant source of growth. At the same time, the coexistence of fixed and floating interest rates will drive the maturation of the on-chain interest rate system. Regulatory and capital logic may also lead to a market structure divided into a compliant, stable layer and a high-risk, innovative layer. On-chain lending will accelerate its integration into the global capital market through asset compliance and institutional alignment.

Table of Contents

I. Overview of the On-Chain Lending Market

  • 1.1. Market Size and Capital Flow
  • 1.2. Macro and Industry Drivers
  • 1.3. Regulatory Dynamics and Compliance

II. Classification of On-Chain Lending Markets

  • 2.1. Collateralized Lending Protocols
  • 2.2. Uncollateralized Lending Protocols
  • 2.3. Modular Lending Protocols
  • 2.4. Integration of RWA and Lending

III. Competitive Landscape

  • 3.1. Leading Protocol Landscape and TVL Changes
  • 3.2. Revenue Structure and Profit Model Comparison
  • 3.3. User Profile and Asset Structure
  • 3.4. Multi-Chain Deployment and Ecosystem Integration

IV. Risks, Dilemmas, and Challenges

  • 4.1. Liquidity Risk
  • 4.2. Credit Default Risk
  • 4.3. Incentives and Growth Illusion
  • 4.4. Cross-Chain Risk

V. Potential Development Trends

  • 5.1. On-Chain Transformation of Inter-Institutional Lending
  • 5.2. On-Chain Tokenization of Securities and Collateral Potential
  • 5.3. U.S. Treasuries as Core Lending Assets
  • 5.4. Coexistence of Fixed and Floating Interest Rates
  • 5.5. Two-Tier Structural Differentiation in the Lending Market

VI. Conclusion

References

On-chain lending protocols have become a vital part of the DeFi ecosystem. Evolving from initial tools for leverage expansion, they now encompass diverse capital markets including stablecoins and RWA. These protocols not only steadily carry liquidity but are increasingly becoming centers for capital pricing and crucial hubs for capital allocation. Currently, the TVL of on-chain lending protocols is approximately $64.3 billion, accounting for about 53.54% of the total DeFi TVL (nearly $120.2 billion). Specifically, Aave alone holds about 50% of the lending TVL, approximately $32.9 billion; protocols like Morpho hold respective market shares.

Furthermore, the diversity of funding sources and asset classes in on-chain lending is increasing, with RWA becoming a new engine for protocol growth. The structure of the on-chain lending market faces a situation of coexisting growth and challenges. On one hand, protocol TVL has gradually recovered, showing a overall market recovery trend. On the other hand, the market still faces structural challenges: severe liquidity fragmentation, dispersed funds across protocols and chains, and a lack of efficient liquidity integration mechanisms; traditional stablecoin lending is nearing saturation, while RWA and institutional credit supply remains insufficient, leading to interest rate differentiation and differences in risk appetite. Below, this report will provide a systematic analysis of the operational logic, current development status, and trends of the on-chain lending sector from the perspectives of market overview, market classification, and competitor landscape.

Full report available at: https://www.coinw.com/zh_CN/research/on-chain-lending-market-structure-risks-and-the-new-cycle/106

Связанные с этим вопросы

QWhat is the current Total Value Locked (TVL) in on-chain lending protocols and what percentage of the total DeFi TVL does it represent?

AThe current TVL in on-chain lending protocols is approximately $64.3 billion, which represents about 53.54% of the total DeFi TVL.

QWhich protocol is the dominant leader in the on-chain lending sector and what is its market share?

AAave is the dominant leader in the on-chain lending sector, holding a TVL of approximately $32.9 billion and accounting for about 50% of the total lending market TVL.

QWhat are two major risks faced by on-chain lending protocols mentioned in the article?

ATwo major risks are: 1) High dependence on collateral value and market liquidity, making them vulnerable to liquidations during market volatility. 2) The introduction of unsecured lending and Real World Assets (RWA) increases credit default and counterparty risk.

QWhat emerging asset class is highlighted as a new growth engine for on-chain lending?

ACredit-type assets, particularly Real World Assets (RWA), are highlighted as a new and important growth engine for on-chain lending.

QWhat is one predicted future trend for the structure of the on-chain lending market according to the article?

AOne predicted trend is the market bifurcating into a two-tiered system, with a compliant and stable layer coexisting with a high-risk innovation layer, driven by regulatory and capital logic.

Похожее

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.

marsbit45 мин. назад

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

marsbit45 мин. назад

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1 ч. назад

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

Odaily星球日报1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片