温馨提示：本站仅提供公开网络链接索引服务，不存储、不篡改任何第三方内容，所有内容版权归原作者所有
AI智能索引来源：http://www.bee.com/hi/63243.html
点击访问原文链接

From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system? | Bee Network

进入原网站 导航首页
From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system? | Bee Network Login ट्रेंडिंग न्यूज़ मीम लॉन्चपैड एआई एजेंट डेस्सी टॉपचेनएक्सप्लोरर न्यूबी के लिए 100x सिक्के मधुमक्खी खेल आवश्यक वेबसाइटें एपीपी अवश्य होना चाहिए क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ डेपिन नौसिखिया आवश्यक ट्रैप डिटेक्टर बुनियादी उपकरण उन्नत वेबसाइटें एक्सचेंजों एनएफटी उपकरण नमस्ते, साइन आउट वेब3 यूनिवर्स खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता बढ़ता हुआ मंच विज्ञापन खोज अंग्रेज़ी रिचार्ज सिक्के लॉग इन करें डाउनलोड करना वेब3 यूनी खेल डीऐप मधुमुखी का छत्ता विज्ञापन घर•विश्लेषण•मुख्य पाठ From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system?विश्लेषण2 महीने पहलेहाँव्याट 16,563 28 ओडेली प्लैनेट डेली द्वारा संकलित ( @ओडेलीचाइना )

Translator | Dingdang ( @XiaMiPP )

As vaults and curators gain market share in the DeFi world, questions are emerging: Are lending protocols seeing their profit margins squeezed? Is lending no longer a good business?

However, if we shift our perspective back to the entire on-chain credit value chain , the conclusion is quite the opposite. Lending protocols still constitute the strongest moat in this value chain. We can quantify this with data.

On Aave and SparkLend, the interest fees paid by the vault to the lending protocols actually exceed the revenue generated by the vault itself. This fact directly challenges the mainstream narrative that “distribution is king.”

At least in the lending sector, distribution is not king.

In short: Aave not only earns more than the various vaults built on top of it, but also surpasses the asset issuers used for lending, such as Lido and Ether.fi.

To understand why, we need to dissect the entire value chain of DeFi lending and re-examine the value capture capabilities of each player by following the flow of funds and fees.

Lending Value Chain Deconstruction

The annualized revenue of the entire lending market has exceeded 1टीपी10टी100 मिलियन . This value is not generated by a single link, but by a complex stack of components: the underlying settlement blockchain, asset issuers, lenders, the lending protocols themselves, and the vault responsible for distribution and strategy execution.

As we mentioned in previous articles, many current lending market applications stem from basis trading और liquidity mining opportunities, and we have broken down the main strategic logic behind them.

So, who is actually “in need” of capital in the lending market?

I analyzed the top 50 wallet addresses on Aave and SparkLend and labeled the major borrowers.

The largest borrowers are various vault and strategy platforms such as Fluid, Treehouse, Mellow, Ether.fi, and Lido (who are also asset issuers). They control the distribution capabilities to end users, helping them obtain higher returns without having to manage complex cycles and risks themselves. There are also large institutional investors, such as Abraxas Capital , who deploy external capital into similar strategies, whose economic models are essentially very similar to those of a vault.

But the vault isn’t the whole story. This chain includes at least the following types of participants:

User : Depositing assets, hoping to obtain additional returns through a vault or strategy manager. Lending agreements : These provide infrastructure and liquidity matching, charging interest to borrowers and taking a percentage as agreement revenue. Lenders : The providers of capital, who may be ordinary users or other financial institutions. Asset issuers: Most on-chain lending assets have underlying backing assets that generate returns, a portion of which are captured by the issuer. Blockchain Network: The Underlying “Track” Through which All Activities Occur The lending agreement earned more than the downstream vault. Take Ether.fi’s ETH liquidity staking vault as an example. It is the second-largest borrower on Aave, with approximately $ 1.5 billion in outstanding loans. The strategy itself is quite typical:

Deposit weETH (approximately +2.9%) Lend out wETH (approximately -2%) Vault charges TVL a 0.5% platform management fee. Of Ether.fi’s total TVL, approximately $215 million is net liquidity actually deployed on Aave. This portion of TVL generates approximately $1.07 million in platform fee revenue annually for the vault.

However, at the same time, this strategy requires Aave to pay approximately $4.5 million in interest annually (calculated as: $1.5 billion in borrowing × 2% borrowing APY × 15% reserve factor).

Even in one of the largest and most successful circular strategies in DeFi, the value captured by lending protocols is still several times that of a vault.

Of course, Ether.fi is also the issuer of weETH, and this vault itself is directly creating demand for weETH.

Even when considering both the returns from the vault strategy and the returns from asset issuers , the economic value created by the lending layer (Aave) is still higher.

In other words, the lending agreement is the link with the greatest value increment in the entire stack.

We can perform the same analysis on other commonly used vaults:

Fluid Lite ETH: 20% performance fee + 0.05% exit fee, no platform management fee. It borrowed $1.7 billion in wETH from Aave, paying approximately $33 million in interest, of which about $5 million went to Aave, and Fluid itself earned nearly $4 million.

The Mellow protocol (strETH) charges a 10% performance fee, with a loan size of $165 million and a TVL of only about $37 million. We see again that, in terms of TVL, the value captured by Aave exceeds the vault itself.

Let’s look at another example. In SparkLend, the second-largest lending protocol on Ethereum, Treehouse is a key player, running an ETH revolving strategy:

TVL approximately US$34 million Borrowed $133 million Performance fees are charged only on marginal revenue exceeding 2.6%.

SparkLend, as a lending protocol, has a higher value capture capability in the TVL dimension than Vault.

The pricing structure of a vault has a significant impact on the value it can capture; however, for lending agreements, revenue depends more on the nominal size of the loan and is relatively stable.

Even if a strategy is shifted to dollar-denominated pricing, the higher interest rates will often offset the effect of lower leverage. I don’t think the conclusion will fundamentally change.

In relatively closed markets, more value may flow to curators, such as through Stakehouse Prime Vault (26% performance fee, incentivized by Morpho). However, this is not the final state of Morpho’s pricing mechanism; curators themselves are also collaborating with other platforms for distribution.

Lending Agreements vs. Asset Issuers So the question is: is it better to use Aave or Lido?

This problem is more complex than comparing vaults because the pledged assets not only generate returns themselves, but also indirectly create stablecoin interest income for the protocol through the lending market. We can only make approximate estimates.

Lido has approximately $4.42 billion in assets in the Ethereum Core market, which is used to support lending positions, generating approximately $11 million in annualized performance fees.

These positions roughly balance ETH and stablecoin lending. Based on the current net interest margin (NIM) of approximately 0.4%, the corresponding lending revenue is around $17 million , significantly higher than Lido’s direct revenue (and this is a historically low NIM level).

The real moat of lending agreements If compared solely to the profit model of traditional finance deposits , DeFi lending protocols may appear to be a low-profit industry. However, this comparison overlooks the true location of the competitive advantage.

In an on-chain credit system, the value captured by lending protocols exceeds that of the downstream distribution layer and also surpasses that of the upstream asset issuers on an overall basis.

On its own, lending may seem like a low-profit business; but within the complete credit stack, it is the layer with the strongest value capture capability relative to all other participants—the treasury, the issuer, and the distribution channels.

यह लेख इंटरनेट से लिया गया है: From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system?

Related: A $2,000 Christmas “heist”: Trump and his tariff windfall Every Christmas, children receive a gift from a mysterious old man, never questioning its cost. Now, Donald Trump is attempting to play Santa Claus for the adult world, promising a $2,000 “tariff bonus” that seems to have fallen from the sky, claiming the gift is paid for by a distant “foreign factory.” The crypto market is already buzzing with excitement, like a bunch of children eagerly unwrapping their presents. But there’s one overlooked detail in this grand magical spectacle: before clapping for the bunny that appeared out of nowhere, no one asks whose dinner it cost, or who’s going hungry tonight. I. When the President Announces Nationwide Money Splashing: A बाज़ार Frenzy Source: Donald Trump The crypto market is precisely that diner who doesn’t care who pays for dinner, but…

# विश्लेषण# डेफी# इथेरियम# मार्केट© 版权声明सरणी 上一篇 The Rebirth After the Crypto Winter: The Major Reshuffle in 2025 and the Path to Value Reconstruction in 2026 下一篇 Lighter's upcoming TGE: A comprehensive overview of timing window, on-chain signals, and market pricing. 相关文章 BitMart Weekly Market Report (August 18-24)Recommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 24,845 1 यदि ट्रम्प राष्ट्रपति चुने जाते तो वे कौन से एन्क्रिप्शन बिल पारित करते? 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 38,027 2 Financing Express of the Week | 11 projects received investment, with a total disclosed financing amount of US$98.5 mill 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 31,972 2 WLFI MVP Battle: Trump Family Accepts $5 Billion, Chain Whales Enjoy “Rice Reaping Moment”Recommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 23,098 2 One-week financing express | 19 projects received investment, with a total financing scale of US$2.3 billion (June 23-Ju 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 27,460 1 From Algorithmic Stablecoin to Interest-Bearing Asset: USDD’s Upgrade Path 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 19,505 Bee.com दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों कॉइनकार्प बिनेंस कॉइनमार्केटकैप कॉइनगेको कॉइनलाइव कवच बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें बी नेटवर्क ऐप डाउनलोड करें और वेब3 यात्रा शुरू करें दुनिया का सबसे बड़ा Web3 पोर्टल भागीदारों CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors सफेद कागज भूमिकाएँ सामान्य प्रश्न © 2021-2026. सर्वाधिकार सुरक्षित।. गोपनीयता नीति | सेवाओं की शर्तें खोज खोजइनसाइटऑनचेनसामाजिकसमाचार उत्तर: एयरड्रॉप शिकारी डेटा विश्लेषण क्रिप्टो हस्तियाँ ट्रैप डिटेक्टर हिन्दी English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 Tiếng Việt العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia اردو Русский हिन्दी

智能索引记录