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

marsbit2026-04-22 tarihinde yayınlandı2026-04-22 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

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.

İlgili Sorular

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.

İlgili Okumalar

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.

marsbit34 dk önce

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

marsbit34 dk önce

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 News48 dk önce

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

Foresight News48 dk önce

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.

marsbit56 dk önce

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

marsbit56 dk önce

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.

marsbit57 dk önce

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

marsbit57 dk önce

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2 saat önce

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

Odaily星球日报2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot

Futures