Why Is DeFi Insurance Unpopular?

Foresight News發佈於 2026-06-23更新於 2026-06-23

文章摘要

The article explores the core reasons why DeFi insurance remains largely unutilized despite its potential to eliminate traditional insurance inefficiencies and malicious claim denials through automated smart contracts. Key points include: 1. **Low Adoption & Minimal Payouts:** Leading provider Nexus Mutual has paid only ~$18M in claims since 2019, dwarfed by single hack losses (e.g., Kelp DAO's $292M loss). 2. **High Correlation Risk:** Unlike traditional insurance (e.g., house fires), DeFi risks (oracle failures, bridge hacks) are systemic and can simultaneously impact multiple protocols, threatening to drain entire insurance pools. 3. **Prohibitive Cost vs. Reward:** For many protocols (Aave, Morpho, Compound), insurance premiums (1.5%-6%) consume a significant portion or even all of the native yield (3%-4%), leaving investors with meager returns. In some cases (Maple Finance, Ethena), premiums can even result in net-negative yields. 4. **Inadequate Capacity:** The total DeFi insurance pool (e.g., Nexus Mutual's $81.56M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive supply-demand gap. 5. **Structural Flaws:** The claims assessment model (e.g., Nexus Mutual's member voting) creates a conflict of interest, as voters bear the loss if a claim is paid. There is also no regulatory mandate forcing DeFi protocols to obtain insurance. The industry is adapting by focusing on preventative measures (e.g., bug bounty coverage) a...


Authored by: Thejaswini M A

Compiled by: Luffy, Foresight News


"Insurance is nothing but a scam," is almost a consensus in the market.


People think this way for a reason. Cigna, a U.S. insurance company, developed an algorithm that could directly deny claims without reviewing medical records. UnitedHealth, when the time set by its algorithm expired, directly stopped paying for care, completely disregarding the opinions of attending physicians. The traditional insurance business model has always been: collect client funds first, take a hefty cut, and then set up barriers at every step to impede claims.


Today, bank deposits are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), but the coverage limit is only $250,000, a standard that has remained largely unchanged since its establishment in 1934. Brokerage accounts are protected by the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC) with a limit of $500,000; once account assets exceed this figure, the protection becomes meaningless. The public perception of security is far lower than reality, with coverage limits set entirely at the discretion of insurance companies.


DeFi insurance was supposed to completely solve this pain point: eliminate intermediaries, with payouts automatically executed as long as the smart contract's preset conditions are triggered, completely removing the possibility of malicious claim denials.


But the reality is that almost no one is buying. Insurance premiums would severely erode investment returns, and after deducting premiums, the remaining yield simply cannot match the investment risks users bear.


This article will explain this market situation and why, even though everyone wants to solve the problem, it's difficult to reverse the core root cause of the predicament.


Nexus Mutual is currently the largest DeFi insurance provider. Since its launch in 2019, its total cumulative claims paid amount to just over $18 million.


Data source: Dune Analytics


In April 2026, Kelp DAO suffered a hack, resulting in losses of up to $292 million. The amount stolen in this single incident alone is equivalent to 16 times the total claims paid by this leading insurance institution over seven years.


This forms an extreme contrast with the current situation of traditional insurance's frantic claim denials. Traditional insurance collects high premiums but goes to great lengths to obstruct claims; DeFi insurance, however, generates meager premium income because almost no investors are willing to purchase coverage.


The stable operation of traditional insurance relies on the principle of uncorrelated risks. One house catching fire doesn't cause other houses to be damaged. An insurance company can sell policies to 1 million users, and a single fire claim can be covered by the premiums collected from all. However, DeFi lacks this risk isolation mechanism: security incidents like oracle failures or cross-chain bridge vulnerabilities can chain-react, impacting all lending protocols and liquidity pools built on that underlying asset. The USDC de-pegging event in March 2023 affected all protocols that used USDC as collateral on that day. For a DeFi insurance pool, risks are highly correlated. The underwriter can only bet that losses from security incidents are controllable and that the pool's funds are sufficient to cover them.


In March 2023, Euler Finance was hacked for $197 million, and the risk spread rapidly: Angle Protocol lost $17 million due to holding Euler liquidity tokens, Yield Protocol shut down operations urgently, and other platforms like Inverse Finance were also affected.


Once a protocol has a security vulnerability, it often affects multiple projects. A single extreme incident in one day could even directly deplete the entire claim reserve of an insurance pool.


I compiled the current premium rates for Nexus Mutual and InsurAce and compared them to the native annual percentage yield (APY) of the protocols they insure: Aave V3's USDC deposit APY is about 3.14%, while the insurance premium range is 1.5%–2.5%. After deducting premiums, the net yield is only 0.6%–1.6%. Investors bear on-chain security risks only to end up with returns slightly higher than ordinary bank savings.



Morpho, Compound, and Spark show similar situations, with native APYs of 3.5%–4%. Premiums consume one-third to half of the yield, leaving minimal profits but with extremely low cost-effectiveness.


Maple Finance's institutional lending pools offer APYs of 4.77%–4.90%, but insurance premiums are as high as 3%–6%. The net yield after insurance ranges from -1.1% to 1.9%. Ethena staking offers APYs of 3.6%–4%, with premiums also at 3%–6%, resulting in net yields of -2.4% to 1%. Purchasing insurance on these two types of platforms can, in extreme cases, lead to losses on the principal for investors.


Only the original MakerDAO (Sky) stands out. Its savings product offers a 3.6% APY, with the lowest insurance premium being only 0.11%. It is widely recognized as the lowest-risk entity within DeFi, retaining a net yield of 2.8%–3.5% after insurance, preserving most of the returns.


Premium pricing strictly corresponds to risk levels, but premiums for emerging platforms are too high, directly consuming the high yields users seek when entering the market.


</p

Crypto investors choose to forgo insurance not out of laziness or recklessness; they understand that in most cases, purchasing insurance equates to zero returns. Even if all DeFi depositors collectively chose full coverage tomorrow, the entire industry could not meet the demand: Nexus Mutual's total pool size is about $81.56 million, and the entire industry's effective coverage capacity is at most a few hundred million dollars. In contrast, the total value locked (TVL) in major protocols amounts to hundreds of billions, a gap of astronomical proportions.


A single large-scale security incident like Kelp DAO would directly drain the vast majority of the industry's insurance reserves.


The historical claims total of $18 million precisely exposes the fragility of the industry's capital pools; the market has never experienced a catastrophic risk event capable of breaching underwriting reserves.


After a user submits a claim to Nexus Mutual, all token-holding members of the platform must vote on whether to pay. Members who vote in favor of paying a claim risk having their own assets directly impaired if the claim ultimately fails to be paid. This mechanism naturally fosters a tendency to deny claims. Traditional insurance employs dedicated underwriters and claims adjusters to balance conflicts, whereas DeFi insurance design merges all responsibilities onto the same group.


Before the 2008 financial crisis, financial risk pricing agencies generally believed a nationwide U.S. housing price collapse was impossible, as they had never experienced it. Insurance giant AIG massively sold risk protection contracts but was completely unable to pay when the market crisis truly erupted.


Before the U.S. government introduced FDIC deposit insurance, ordinary savers had no asset safety net. The Great Depression forced the government to mandate bank insurance, making coverage a hard cost for banks to operate.


In the DeFi space, no one can force protocols like Aave or Morpho to purchase insurance. Smart contract deployment is completely permissionless; there is no entity that can mandate projects to configure risk protection. This also leads to a lack of a safety net to withstand extreme market conditions in the industry.


The three largest claims in Nexus Mutual's history are: the FTX collapse, paid in two installments totaling about $7.3 million; the TribeDAO hack, a $5 million payout; and the Euler Finance hack, a $3.4 million payout. The sum of these three amounts almost equals the platform's total cumulative claims of $18.6 million over seven years.


Now, this mutual insurance platform is shifting towards proactive risk prevention. It has partnered with security audit agencies like Immunefi, Cantina, and Sherlock to launch bug bounty protection products. The protocol only needs to bear 20% of the critical bug bounty cost, with Nexus Mutual covering the rest, pre-funding incentives for white-hat hackers to identify vulnerabilities and avoid theft incidents at the source. Meanwhile, Nexus Mutual is expanding into compliant insurance tranches, attempting to connect crypto risks to reinsurance capital pools and introduce larger external capital to supplement underwriting capacity.


In March 2025, Cantina took a step further by launching an independent native protocol protection product, ensuring users can still receive payouts even if a vulnerability is not discovered early by bounty hunters and the protocol is hacked.


Both of these strategic shifts essentially acknowledge a core reality: on-chain native capital is insufficient to cover on-chain risks. Three fundamental flaws are irreparable: the insurance pool size is too small, risks are highly correlated, and the claim adjudicators and capital providers are the same group.


Nexus Mutual has $81.56 million in Total Value Locked (TVL) according to DeFiLlama, capturing 85% of the DeFi insurance market share. Other players are continuously shrinking: InsurAce peaked at $150 million TVL and is now only $132,000, having completed only one major claim after the UST de-peg in 2022; Sherlock's pool shrank from $60 million to $505,000 within a year; Unslashed Finance has millions of dollars trapped in outdated, un-updated code since late 2024. Other insurance projects have either shut down completely or pivoted to different business models.


A lighthouse warns all ships of hidden reefs but cannot charge passing vessels a fee, making it difficult for anyone to voluntarily fund its construction. The benefits are shared by all, but the cost is borne by the builder alone.


The value of DeFi insurance lies in preventing the spread of chain-reaction liquidation stampedes. Crypto market assets are highly interconnected; only when everyone simultaneously obtains coverage can overall market stability be maintained. But if everyone expects others to buy insurance as a safety net while unwilling to bear the premium cost themselves, ultimately no one will configure insurance, and the risk protection system becomes useless. Protection that no one actively underpins ultimately safeguards no assets.

熱門幣種推薦

相關問答

QWhat is the core reason why DeFi insurance has low adoption, as explained in the article?

AThe core reason is that insurance premiums heavily erode user yields. After deducting premiums, the net returns often barely exceed or even fall below traditional savings rates, making insurance an unattractive cost for risk-seeking DeFi users.

QHow does the risk profile in DeFi differ from traditional insurance, and why is this a problem?

AIn traditional insurance, risks are largely uncorrelated (e.g., one house fire doesn't affect others). In DeFi, risks are highly correlated—a single oracle failure or bridge hack can impact multiple protocols and their underlying assets simultaneously, threatening to drain an entire insurance pool from one event.

QWhat specific example does the article use to illustrate the insufficiency of DeFi insurance pool sizes?

AThe article cites the Kelp DAO hack in April 2026, which resulted in a loss of $292 million. This single loss was 16 times greater than the total historical claims paid out by Nexus Mutual, the largest DeFi insurer, over seven years (~$18 million).

QWhat is a key structural flaw in the claims process for platforms like Nexus Mutual?

AA key flaw is that the same group of token holders who provide the capital for the insurance pool also vote on whether to pay out claims. Since their own assets are at risk if a claim is approved and paid, the system has a built-in incentive to deny claims.

QWhat fundamental economic dilemma does the 'lighthouse' analogy at the end of the article highlight for DeFi insurance?

AThe 'lighthouse' analogy highlights a public goods dilemma. DeFi insurance provides stability and prevents cascading liquidations for the entire ecosystem (a shared benefit), but the cost is borne individually by those who pay premiums. If everyone relies on others to buy insurance, no one will, and the protective system fails.

你可能也喜歡

交易

現貨

熱門文章

什麼是 DOGE M

Doge Matrix ($doge m):新一代社區驅動的加密貨幣 介紹 在不斷演變的加密貨幣領域中,新項目不斷湧現,每個項目都旨在吸引投資者和愛好者的興趣。最近進入這一領域的項目之一是 Doge Matrix,代碼為 $doge m。這個項目因其根植於圍繞 Dogecoin 的流行迷因文化而受到關注,並在 web3 空間中確立了自己的地位。本文旨在對 Doge Matrix 進行全面分析,涵蓋其概述、創建者、投資者、功能、時間線和顯著特點。 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 是什麼? Doge Matrix 是一個社區驅動的加密貨幣項目,似乎建立在 Dogecoin 的廣泛吸引力之上,這是一種以柴犬吉祥物和迷因起源而聞名的數字貨幣。雖然 Doge Matrix 的總體目標並未明確定義,但它的特點是致力於利用社區的參與和支持。與傳統加密貨幣通常強調通過底層技術的實用性或內在價值不同,Doge Matrix 將自己定位於擁抱加密貨幣文化現象的空間,特別吸引那些與基於迷因的資產精神共鳴的人。 Doge Matrix 利用 Dogecoin 社區的優勢,作為更廣泛生態系統的一部分,邀請對加密貨幣和數字領域感興趣的用戶參與和互動。 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 的創建者是誰? Doge Matrix 的創建者身份仍然未知。這種缺乏透明度在加密貨幣領域並不罕見,一些項目在未透露其創始人身份的情況下啟動。關於創始團隊的信息缺失可能會引發潛在投資者對項目責任和方向的質疑。 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 的投資者是誰? 目前,沒有公開的資訊詳細說明支持 Doge Matrix 的投資者或投資基金。該項目似乎主要依賴社區支持,而非機構投資。這一模式與該倡議的社區驅動特性相一致,促進了一個由參與者塑造項目方向的環境,而不是由少數財務支持者主導。 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 如何運作? 關於 Doge Matrix 的運作機制的具體細節有些模糊,反映了迷因幣空間中項目的普遍趨勢,即創新功能並不總是清晰表達。儘管如此,Doge Matrix 似乎旨在通過鼓勵用戶參與來利用現有的加密貨幣生態系統,同時利用與 Dogecoin 相關的熟悉文化參考。 其潛在的獨特特徵源於社區互動,而非技術進步,強調代幣持有者之間的共享經驗和合作。雖然具體的創新尚未明確說明,但該項目似乎創造了一個社區成員可以互動、分享想法並推動項目潛力的空間。 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 的時間線 回顧該項目的時間線,顯示出一些定義其迄今為止旅程的重要事件: 2024年11月25日:Doge Matrix 達到其歷史最高價,標誌著其早期歷史中的一個重要里程碑。 2025年1月1日:相反,Doge Matrix 達到其歷史最低價,顯示出加密貨幣通常伴隨的波動性,特別是在項目生命周期的早期階段。 持續進行中:該項目仍在積極交易並得到其社區的支持,儘管具體的未來里程碑或目標尚未披露。 關於 Doge Matrix ($doge m) 的要點 社區焦點 Doge Matrix 的核心是對社區參與的承諾。該項目基於成員之間的合作和共同目標而蓬勃發展,強調集體努力的重要性。與通常有明確領導結構的集中式項目不同,Doge Matrix 目前展示了一種更靈活的治理方式,每位社區成員的聲音都很重要。 波動性 加密貨幣市場以其波動性而聞名,Doge Matrix 也不例外。其價格歷史反映出高低價值之間的顯著波動,這是許多新加密貨幣的典型特徵,但也強調了投資新興代幣所面臨的風險。 缺乏詳細信息 Doge Matrix 最引人注目的特點之一是關於其技術基礎和運作機制的詳細信息稀缺。這種模糊性使得潛在投資者在參與該項目之前必須進行徹底的盡職調查。 結論 總之,Doge Matrix ($doge m) 展示了一波新興的加密貨幣項目,這些項目在很大程度上依賴於社區參與和文化相關性。儘管在某些具體方面(如明確的領導、定義的目標和詳細的功能)有所欠缺,但該項目成功地在加密社區中引起了興趣,利用了迷因文化的既有吸引力。與任何加密貨幣投資一樣,理解固有風險並進行全面研究對於潛在參與者至關重要。Doge Matrix 是加密行業動態且有時不可預測的本質的提醒,標誌著不斷的演變和對社區驅動倡議的熱情。

585 人學過發佈於 2025.02.03更新於 2025.02.03

什麼是 DOGE M

什麼是 $M

理解 Mantis ($M):跨鏈互操作性的新時代 在不斷演變的 Web3 和加密貨幣領域,新項目努力提供創新的解決方案,旨在提升用戶體驗並擴展去中心化金融生態系統中的功能可能性。其中一個引起關注的項目是 Mantis ($M),這是一個基於跨鏈互操作性和基於意圖的結算原則的開創性協議。本文深入探討 Mantis 的基本方面,包括其核心功能、創建者、投資支持、創新特徵和關鍵里程碑。 Mantis ($M) 是什麼? Mantis 被描述為一個 多域意圖結算協議,簡化了跨鏈互動,使得用戶能夠在各種區塊鏈平台上無縫執行複雜的金融交易。該協議通過三個主要層次運作: 意圖表達:用戶可以使用由 DISE LLM 提供的自然語言來表達其交易目標,這是一種先進的 AI 語言模型。例如,用戶可能會表達希望以 1% 的滑點容忍度將以太坊 (ETH) 交換為索拉納 (SOL)。 執行:這一層利用一個解決者網絡,競爭以滿足用戶的意圖。交易通過如需求一致 (CoWs) 和訂單流拍賣 (OFAs) 等機制執行,確保用戶需求得到最佳滿足。 結算:利用跨區塊鏈通信 (IBC) 協議,Mantis 實現原子跨鏈交易,使用戶能夠在包括以太坊、索拉納和宇宙等各種支持的鏈上操作。 Mantis 被設計為為閒置資產引入 原生收益生成,並利用加密證明來保持整個過程中交易的完整性。 創建者與開發團隊 Mantis 由 Composable Foundation 構思,這是一個以研究為驅動的組織,以其對區塊鏈互操作性解決方案的重視而聞名。該基金會與包括哈佛大學和里斯本大學在內的著名學術機構合作,為 Mantis 的架構和功能提供廣泛的研究和開發支持。 Composable Foundation 致力於促進區塊鏈領域的創新,使 Mantis 成為滿足多個區塊鏈網絡間日益增長的互操作性需求的強大解決方案。 投資者與支持 儘管有關個別投資者的具體細節尚未公開披露,但 Mantis 享有來自多個實體的實質支持,包括: 來自 IBC 支持鏈的生態系統補助金,支持協議在去中心化金融生態系統中的增長和整合。 與基礎設施提供商的戰略夥伴關係,增強 Mantis 的網絡能力和部署策略。 通過 Composable Foundation 的財庫提供的資金,確保持續的財務支持以應對持續的開發和運營成本。 這些合作努力反映了利益相關者對增強跨鏈功能和 Mantis 基礎設施創新潛在效用的重要性達成共識。 主要創新 Mantis 通過幾項開創性創新來提升其功能和效用: 鏈無關意圖:用戶可以從任何支持的鏈發起交易,同時在另一條鏈上結算。這種靈活性賦予用戶權力,促進不同平台之間的互動。 AI 驅動的界面:DISE LLM 的整合使得用戶能夠使用自然語言進行複雜的 DeFi 操作,從而簡化互動,並使區塊鏈技術對更廣泛的受眾變得可及。 跨域 MEV 捕獲:Mantis 通過解決者之間的競爭創建了一個內部市場,以獲取最大可提取價值 (MEV)。這一創新方法允許在複雜交易中實現更高的效率和價值提取。 模組化結算層:該協議支持多種驗證方法,包括零知識證明和樂觀滾動,提供一個靈活的框架,可以適應新興的區塊鏈技術。 歷史時間表 Mantis 的發展標誌著幾個關鍵里程碑,描繪了其軌跡和增長: | 年份 | 里程碑 | |————|————————————————————————-| | 2022 | 在 Composable Foundation 的研究部門內進行初步概念開發。 | | 2024 第三季 | 啟動測試網,實現索拉納和以太坊之間的橋接能力。 | | 2025 第一季 | 預計代幣生成事件 (TGE) 與主網啟動同時進行。 | | 2025 第二季 | 預期整合 DISE LLM 並擴展跨鏈能力。 | | 2025 下半年 | 計劃通過進一步的 IBC 升級支持超過 15 條鏈。 | 這個時間表概述了 Mantis 的演變,從概念討論到積極實施和未來增長階段。 生態系統增長策略 Mantis 的生態系統增長策略包括幾項旨在鼓勵用戶參與和開發者參與的舉措: 信用系統:用戶可以通過提供流動性和參加推薦計劃來獲得協議信用。這些信用可在未來兌換獎勵,促進強大的用戶社區。 模組化軟件開發工具包 (SDK):這個工具包使開發者能夠基於意圖驅動模型利用 Mantis 的基礎設施創建應用程序,從而促進其生態系統內的創新。 治理模型:隨著協議的成熟,$M 代幣持有者將在協議治理中擁有發言權,允許他們對提議的升級和變更進行投票,從而增強社區參與和去中心化。 Mantis 代表了跨鏈架構領域的一個重大進展。通過無縫整合先進的 AI 算法和強大的結算框架,Mantis 努力解決多鏈生態系統中的碎片化問題。其創新方法優先考慮改善用戶體驗,同時遵循去中心化和安全性的基本原則,為未來區塊鏈技術的互操作性設立了新標準。 隨著 Mantis 繼續其增長和實施之旅,它承諾成為 Web3 和去中心化金融競爭格局中值得密切關注的項目。憑藉其跨越界限和提升用戶參與的重點,Mantis 預計將成為未來加密貨幣領域發展的重要組成部分。

71 人學過發佈於 2025.03.18更新於 2025.03.18

什麼是 $M

如何購買M

歡迎來到HTX.com!在這裡,購買MemeCore (M)變得簡單而便捷。跟隨我們的逐步指南,放心開始您的加密貨幣之旅。第一步:創建您的HTX帳戶使用您的 Email、手機號碼在HTX註冊一個免費帳戶。體驗無憂的註冊過程並解鎖所有平台功能。立即註冊第二步:前往買幣頁面,選擇您的支付方式信用卡/金融卡購買:使用您的Visa或Mastercard即時購買MemeCore (M)。餘額購買:使用您HTX帳戶餘額中的資金進行無縫交易。第三方購買:探索諸如Google Pay或Apple Pay等流行支付方式以增加便利性。C2C購買:在HTX平台上直接與其他用戶交易。HTX 場外交易 (OTC) 購買:為大量交易者提供個性化服務和競爭性匯率。第三步:存儲您的MemeCore (M)購買MemeCore (M)後,將其存儲在您的HTX帳戶中。您也可以透過區塊鏈轉帳將其發送到其他地址或者用於交易其他加密貨幣。第四步:交易MemeCore (M)在HTX的現貨市場輕鬆交易MemeCore (M)。前往您的帳戶,選擇交易對,執行交易,並即時監控。HTX為初學者和經驗豐富的交易者提供了友好的用戶體驗。

1.2k 人學過發佈於 2025.07.02更新於 2026.06.02

如何購買M

相關討論

歡迎來到 HTX 社群。在這裡,您可以了解最新的平台發展動態並獲得專業的市場意見。 以下是用戶對 M (M)幣價的意見。

活动图片