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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-04-22Востаннє оновлено о 2026-04-22

Анотація

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.

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

Michael Saylor presents 110 arguments against Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 110, a soft fork aimed at restricting certain non-monetary data storage uses (like inscriptions) on the Bitcoin blockchain. He acknowledges the proponents' valid concerns—such as node costs, fee pressure, and preserving Bitcoin's monetary focus—but fundamentally disagrees with the proposed solution. Saylor argues that BIP 110 represents a dangerous precedent of using consensus rules to enforce value judgments on transaction validity, moving away from Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and permissionless innovation. His key objections are organized into eleven categories: 1) It violates neutrality and hard consensus by banning currently valid transactions. 2) It fails to meet the high burden of proof required for a consensus change, lacking concrete data on the alleged crisis. 3) Its seven bundled technical restrictions are overly broad, targeting generic script functionalities and blocking future upgrade paths. 4) It sacrifices compatibility and future optionality by closing off designed upgrade hooks. 5) Its temporary rules add significant complexity (grandfathering, expiry states) without sufficient justification. 6) The economic and security impacts, particularly on miner revenue and fee markets, are uncertain and unmodeled. 7) Superior, market-based tools (fee markets, relay/mining policies) already exist to manage blockchain load. 8) It stifles innovation by creating a chilling effect for developers. 9) Its modified activation mechanism (55% threshold, forced signaling) is aggressive and risks network splits. 10) The precedent it sets—using consensus to suppress disliked but legal uses—is more dangerous than the problem it aims to solve. 11) A better path exists: improving measurements, refining resource-based policies, and allowing market forces to work. Saylor concludes that Bitcoin's strength lies in its neutral rules, open markets, and hard consensus. Changing these foundational elements to target specific use cases is an unnecessary and risky "iatrogenic" intervention. He advocates for guarding Bitcoin's neutrality rather than acting as its redeemer.

marsbit8 хв тому

Michael Saylor: 110 Reasons to Oppose BIP-110

marsbit8 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片