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

marsbitОпубліковано о 2026-01-28Востаннє оновлено о 2026-01-28

Анотація

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

Пов'язані питання

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.

Пов'язані матеріали

What's the Connection Between Pinduoduo's Huang Zheng and Blockchain?

This text explores the unexpected connection between Pinduoduo founder Colin Huang and blockchain, as suggested in his article *Turning Capitalism Upside Down*. Huang argues Pinduoduo's core business is about managing "uncertainty." He posits that wealth flows to the rich because they absorb life's uncertainties (e.g., illness, job loss) that devastate the poor, who pay a premium for certainty through insurance or stable prices. Pinduoduo's model attempts a "reverse insurance": by aggregating consumer demand via group-buying and flash sales, it creates a large, predictable order for manufacturers. This certainty allows factories to remove risk premiums, passing savings back as lower prices, thus partially reversing the wealth flow. The key obstacle, Huang notes, is that an individual's buying intent is an unreliable promise. He then asks if blockchain is the natural solution for this "reverse insurance." The text elaborates that blockchain, through smart contracts with binding deposits, could transform casual intent into a costly-to-break, enforceable commitment. This replaces interpersonal trust with coded rules, making promises credible, pricable, and resistant to fraud. Finally, the author draws a parallel to Bitcoin, framing two paths to creating certainty: the "Pinduoduo path" of aggregating decentralized will into scale, and the "Bitcoin path" of locking rules into immutable code. Both sacrifice something—personal freedom or system flexibility—to manufacture trust and predictability.

链捕手17 хв тому

What's the Connection Between Pinduoduo's Huang Zheng and Blockchain?

链捕手17 хв тому

The Storage Magnate Who Conquered a Trillion-Dollar Kingdom, Yet Ultimately Could Not Become the Richest

**Summary:** "The Memory Magnate Who Built a Trillion-Dollar Empire, Yet Never Became the Richest" explores the journey of Zhu Yiming, founder of GigaDevice (603986) and co-founder of the soon-to-IPO ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). The article positions GigaDevice, a fabless chip designer now valued at ~¥340 billion, as a prequel to the massive IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturer) venture, CXMT. Starting in 2005 with minimal capital, Zhu strategically "picked up the pieces" by focusing on niche markets like NOR Flash and microcontrollers (MCUs), areas major players were exiting. This allowed GigaDevice to grow into a diversified semiconductor company, maintaining robust profitability even during industry downturns by controlling costs. However, the piece argues that in the highly cyclical and capital-intensive memory chip industry, the fabless model has limits. True resilience and scale require the ability for "counter-cyclical expansion" – investing heavily during downturns – a tactic only possible for IDMs like Samsung or SK Hynix. This insight led Zhu to partner with the Hefei city government in 2016 to establish CXMT, an IDM focused on DRAM. Zhu's symbolic moves, like forfeiting salary and diluting his equity, were crucial in securing the massive state and bank funding needed. CXMT's equipment base is now valued even higher than that of BYD's vast auto manufacturing empire. Despite the potential for CXMT to reach a market cap of ¥1-2 trillion upon its IPO, Zhu's indirect stake in both companies is estimated below 3%, placing his personal wealth far below that of China's top billionaires. The article concludes that his strategic vision built a trillion-yuan memory landscape, but the capital structure necessary to achieve it precluded a personal fortune of similar scale.

marsbit24 хв тому

The Storage Magnate Who Conquered a Trillion-Dollar Kingdom, Yet Ultimately Could Not Become the Richest

marsbit24 хв тому

XRP Ledger Daily Fees Drop Below $400 As Network Activity Question Returns

The XRP Ledger is drawing attention as daily network fees have fallen below $400. While low fees align with XRPL's design for affordable transactions and are often seen as a strength, the metric can also serve as an indicator of network demand and paid transaction volume. This data point of around $3,100 in weekly fee burn highlights the stark contrast with higher-fee chains like Ethereum and Bitcoin. The development fuels an ongoing debate. Proponents view low fees as a sign of efficiency and accessibility, while critics may question if the network is generating sufficient high-value activity relative to its market cap and payments-focused narrative. The article cautions against overstating the finding, noting a single low-fee day does not signify network failure. It instead adds context to discussions about XRPL's usage, especially alongside Ripple's broader initiatives in stablecoins (RLUSD), AI payments, and enterprise infrastructure. The report recommends monitoring for a fee rebound, checking transaction counts for a fuller picture, and confirming the trend via native explorers like Bithomp. It frames the story within a larger market shift where on-chain data, protocol updates, and infrastructure developments are becoming crucial alongside price action. The editorial stance is to present the verified data, explain its significance for assessing network activity, and avoid hype, positioning it as part of the daily crypto conversation.

bitcoinist4 год тому

XRP Ledger Daily Fees Drop Below $400 As Network Activity Question Returns

bitcoinist4 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片