Analysts identify 3 critical flaws that brought DeFi down

Cointelegraph发布于2022-07-01更新于2022-07-01

文章摘要

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.

你可能也喜欢

Zcash Orchard漏洞四问:曾被利用?资金可追?供应量可验?还有别的吗?

近日,隐私项目Zcash的新一代隐私池Orchard被曝曾存在关键伪造漏洞,引发市场对ZEC供应量与资金安全的担忧。Zcash创始人Zooko Wilcox对此发布长文回应,主要围绕四个核心问题展开。 首先,关于漏洞是否曾被利用,他认为可能性不大。该漏洞由专业团队使用先进AI工具主动发现,此前未被察觉。开发者在发现后迅速协调矿池冻结Orchard池并修复,限制了攻击窗口。历史上,加密货币漏洞利用多为快速变现,目前未见相关证据。 其次,关于合法Orchard资金能否追回,他认为可以。若漏洞未被利用,所有资金可完全追回。即便发生过伪造,现有的转门机制也会限制总迁移量,但用户可能无法追回全部资金。他建议谨慎用户可将资金转移至透明池或Sapling池,但也提示了关联交易暴露、依赖旧可信设置等额外风险。 第三,关于用户能否验证ZEC供应量未超标,目前尚不能。但即将到来的Ironwood升级将通过封存Orchard池来解决此问题,届时任何运行节点者都能独立验证流通中的ZEC未超过正确数额,恢复供应量的可验证性。 最后,关于是否存在其他伪造漏洞,目前不能完全确定,但持续审查(包括使用AI辅助分析)尚未发现其他类似漏洞,增加了信心。团队正与其他项目合作为此提供更多保证。 总结而言,Wilcox评估漏洞很可能未被利用,资金可追回,供应量安全,且暂无其他漏洞迹象。但用户最终不应依赖他人评估,而Ironwood升级将恢复用户自行验证供应量的关键能力。

Odaily星球日报15分钟前

Zcash Orchard漏洞四问:曾被利用?资金可追?供应量可验?还有别的吗?

Odaily星球日报15分钟前

交易

现货
合约
活动图片