Analysts identify 3 critical flaws that brought DeFi down

Cointelegraph2022-07-01 tarihinde yayınlandı2022-07-01 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

The dust has yet to settle, but a steady flow of details is allowing investors to piece together a picture that highlights the systemic risks of decentralized finance and poor risk management.

The cryptocurrency market has had a rough go this year and the collapse of multiple projects and funds sparked a contagion effect that has affected just about everyone in the space. 
The dust has yet to settle, but a steady flow of details is allowing investors to piece together a picture that highlights the systemic risks of decentralized finance and poor risk management.
Here’s a look at what several experts are saying about the reasons behind the DeFi crash and their perspectives on what needs to be done for the sector to make a comeback.
Failure to generate sustainable revenue
One of the most frequently cited reasons for DeFi protocols struggling is their inability to generate sustainable income that adds meaningful value to the platform's ecosystem.
Fundamental Design Principles for DeFi:
- If the protocol doesn’t work without a reward token, it’s a Ponzi scheme
A reward token should not be necessary for a protocol to function. That means the protocol is not a revenue generating business.
— Joseph Delong* (@josephdelong) May 23, 2022
In their attempt to attract users, high yields were offered at an unsustainable rate, while there was insufficient inflow to offset payouts and provide underlying value for the platform's native token.
This essentially means that there was no real value backing the token which was used to payout the high yields offered to users.
As users began to realize that their assets weren’t really earning the yields they were promised, they would remove their liquidity and sell the reward tokens. This in turn caused a decline in the token price, along with a drop in the total value locked (TVL), which further incited panic for users of the protocol who would likewise pull their liquidity and lock in the value of any rewards received.
Tokenomics or Ponzinomics?
A second flaw highlighted by multiple experts is the poorly designed tokenomic structure of many DeFi protocols that often have an extremely high inflation rate which was used to lure liquidity.

High rewards are nice, but if the value of the token being paid out as a reward isn’t really there, then users are basically taking a lot of risk by relinquishing control of their funds for little to no reward.
This largely ties in with DeFi's revenue generation issue, and the inability to build sustainable treasuries. High inflation increases token supply, and if token value is not maintained, liquidity leaves the ecosystem.

Overleveraged users
The overuse of leverage is another endemic DeFi problem and this flaw became crystal clear as Celsius, 3AC and other platforms invested in DeFi began to unravel last month.
Users who staked these inflationary tokens to over-leverage their positions got liquidated as prices dipped due to market sell-offs.
This led to a death spiral for the protocol. @Wonderland_fi is one such protocol where users leveraged $TIME to borrow $MIM and got liquidated
— Magik Invest ✨ (@magikinvestxyz) June 28, 2022
These liquidations only exasperated the downtrend that many tokens were already experiencing, triggering a death spiral that spread to CeFi and DeFi platforms and a few centralized crypto exchanges.
In this sense, the onus really falls on the users for being over-leveraged without a solid game plan on what to do in the eventuality of a market downturn. While it can be a challenge to think about these things during the height of a bull market, it should always be something in the back of a trader's mind because the cryptocurrency ecosystem is well known for its whipsaw volatility.

İlgili Okumalar

Four Questions on the Zcash Orchard Vulnerability: Was It Exploited? Can Funds Be Recovered? Is the Supply Verifiable? And Are There Others?

Zcash Orchard Bug: Four Key Questions Answered A critical forgery vulnerability was discovered in Zcash's Orchard privacy pool, raising four major concerns for users. 1. **Was the Orchard bug exploited?** The likelihood is considered low. The bug was found proactively using advanced AI-assisted tools and was promptly patched, limiting any potential attack window. If exploitation had occurred, evidence would likely have surfaced by now. 2. **Can legitimate Orchard funds be recovered?** It is believed so, based on the assessment that the bug was not exploited. If forgery did happen, existing "turnstile" mechanisms could prevent full recovery of legitimate funds if forged coins were moved out first, though this scenario is deemed unlikely. Users can choose to move funds, but this carries risks like loss of privacy or new wallet/software issues. 3. **Can users verify Zcash's total supply?** Currently, no. The vulnerability's prior existence prevented independent verification of the shielded supply. The proposed "Ironwood" network upgrade will restore this ability by sealing the Orchard pool, allowing anyone running a node to verify that the circulating ZEC does not exceed the correct amount. 4. **Are there other forgery bugs?** Ongoing intensive audits by multiple teams, including AI-assisted analysis, have not found additional forgery vulnerabilities, increasing confidence that none remain. Further work and collaborations are planned to provide additional guarantees. In conclusion, while the team assesses that exploitation was unlikely and the supply is safe, the upcoming upgrade is critical to restore users' ability to independently verify Zcash's supply integrity, moving away from reliance on trust.

marsbit11 dk önce

Four Questions on the Zcash Orchard Vulnerability: Was It Exploited? Can Funds Be Recovered? Is the Supply Verifiable? And Are There Others?

marsbit11 dk önce

Four Questions on the Zcash Orchard Vulnerability: Was it Exploited? Can Funds Be Recovered? Is the Supply Verifiable? Are There Others?

**Summary: Zcash Orchard Vulnerability Analysis** A critical forgery vulnerability was recently discovered in Zcash's Orchard shielded pool, raising concerns about the coin's supply and user funds. The developers, led by Zcash Open Development Labs, acted swiftly to temporarily freeze the pool and deploy a fix. The article addresses four key questions: 1. **Was the vulnerability exploited?** While unknown, the developers believe it is unlikely for several reasons: the bug was difficult to find, using advanced AI tools; the fix was deployed quickly; and typical crypto exploits are fast, with no evidence of abnormal outflows. 2. **Can legitimate Orchard funds be recovered?** If the bug was not exploited, all funds are safe. If exploited, a mechanism limits total withdrawals from the pool to the amount legitimately entered, potentially blocking some legitimate funds. The developers deem this unlikely but advise cautious users to consider moving funds, noting the privacy and risk trade-offs of moving to transparent or Sapling pools. 3. **Can users verify Zcash's total supply?** Not currently. The vulnerability temporarily broke the ability for users to independently verify that no extra ZEC was created. 4. **Are there other forgery bugs?** Ongoing audits by multiple teams, including using advanced AI analysis, have so far found no others, increasing confidence. The proposed "Ironwood" network upgrade is the core solution. It will **seal** the Orchard pool, preventing new entries or internal circulation. This action, combined with the existing withdrawal mechanism, will restore the ability for any node operator to verify that Zcash's supply limit has not been violated, regardless of whether exploitation occurred in the past. The upgrade aims to restore the system's long-term credibility through user-verifiable supply integrity.

Odaily星球日报12 dk önce

Four Questions on the Zcash Orchard Vulnerability: Was it Exploited? Can Funds Be Recovered? Is the Supply Verifiable? Are There Others?

Odaily星球日报12 dk önce

An AI Version of the 'Subprime Crisis'? A Hidden Debt of $1.8 Trillion is Accumulating in the Shadows Amid the Frenzy

Amidst the AI infrastructure construction boom, a massive debt expansion is forming, with the most dangerous portion remaining off-balance sheets. Morgan Stanley research reveals approximately $1.8 trillion in off-balance-sheet exposures, including nearly $1 trillion in purchase commitments and over $800 billion in non-active lease contracts. These future cash outflows are not recorded as liabilities. The leverage of hyperscale cloud companies has surged from 0.9x to 1.8x in just two quarters. Private credit firms like Apollo and Blackstone are shifting leverage into the supply chain through complex, opaque SPV (Special Purpose Vehicle) financing structures. Global AI-related bond issuance has skyrocketed, with annual volume projected to exceed $570 billion. However, capital expenditure growth is outpacing revenue and free cash flow. Major cloud providers may see free cash flow approach zero or turn negative in 2026. A significant 'depreciation cliff' looms as vast amounts of current capital spending, recorded as 'construction in progress,' have yet to begin depreciating, artificially inflating current profit margins. Future depreciation could severely pressure earnings. The core risk is identified as a series of timing mismatches, not an immediate solvency crisis. Investment is racing ahead of monetization, leverage is being obscured, and accounting classifications hinder comparability. The entire financing structure faces a fundamental stress test if AI commercialization lags or enterprise clients shift to cheaper alternatives, potentially triggering chain reactions within the highly interconnected funding ecosystem.

marsbit23 dk önce

An AI Version of the 'Subprime Crisis'? A Hidden Debt of $1.8 Trillion is Accumulating in the Shadows Amid the Frenzy

marsbit23 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片