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/ru/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 Актуальные новости Запуск мемов Агенты искусственного интеллекта DeSci TopChainExplorer Для Ньюби 100-кратное количество монет Игра "Пчелка Основные веб-сайты Must-Have APP Криптознаменитости DePIN Новички насущные Детектор-ловушка Основные инструменты Продвинутые веб-сайты Обмен Инструменты NFT Привет, Выйти Вселенная Web3 Игры DApp Пчелиный улей Растущая платформа AD Поиск Английский язык Монеты для пополнения запасов Вход в систему Скачать Web3 Uni Игры DApp Пчелиный улей AD дом•Анализ•From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system? From Aave to Ether.fi: Who has captured the most value in the on-chain credit system?Анализ2mos agoUpdateУайатт 16 575 29 Compiled by Odaily Planet Daily ( @OdailyChina )

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 $100 million . 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 и 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.

Эта статья взята из интернета: 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 Рынок Frenzy Source: Donald Trump The crypto market is precisely that diner who doesn’t care who pays for dinner, but…

Анализ ## defi# ethereumРынок #© Copyright NoticeМассив Pre The Rebirth After the Crypto Winter: The Major Reshuffle in 2025 and the Path to Value Reconstruction in 2026 Next Lighter's upcoming TGE: A comprehensive overview of timing window, on-chain signals, and market pricing. Related articles The Bitcoin conspiracy theory that is sweeping the Internet: Tether is creating the biggest bubble in financial history 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 30 253 1 The passage of the GENIUS Act further strengthens the ideological stamp, making BTCs 10-year slow bull market possible 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 28 228 1 RWA Weekly Report | Nasdaq is striving to launch tokenized securities trading; the US Senate’s cryptocurrency market str 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 22 899 1 RWA Weekly Report｜RWA Market Cap Continues to Rise; US Senators Submit Over 130 Amendments Focusing on Stablecoin Yields 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 10 724 South Korea’s Stablecoin Policy: Who Benefits?Recommended Articles 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 25 594 2 Huobi Growth Academy | In-Depth Research Report on Web3 Margin Trading: The Path to Integrating Traditional Financial Ex 6086cf14eb90bc67ca4fc62b 22 391 4 Последние статьи Did Jane Street “Manipulate” BTC? Decoding the AP System, Understanding the Power Struggle Behind ETF Creation and Redemption Pricing 3hrs ago 187 Stop Comparing Bitcoin to Gold—It’s Now a High-Volatility Software Stock 3hrs ago 238 Matrixport Research: $25 Billion Gamma Unwinding Imminent, Liquidity Yet to Return Behind the Rebound 3hrs ago 212 ERC-5564: Ethereum’s Stealth Era Has Arrived, Receiving Addresses No Longer ‘Exposed’ 3hrs ago 231 Hong Kong Regulatory Green Light: Asseto Enables DL Holdings to Achieve Compliance for Two RWA Business Implementations 3hrs ago 227 Популярные сайтыTempoLighterGAIBПланерПланкаRaylsBCPokerVooi Bee.com Крупнейший в мире портал Web3. Партнеры CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Доспехи Загрузите приложение Bee Network APP и начните путешествие по web3 Белая книга Роли ЧАСТО ЗАДАВАЕМЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ © 2021-2026. Все права защищены. Политика конфиденциальности | Условия предоставления услуг Скачать приложение Bee Network APP и начните путешествие по web3 Крупнейший в мире портал Web3 Партнеры CoinCarp Binance CoinMarketCap CoinGecko Coinlive Armors Белая книга Роли ЧАСТО ЗАДАВАЕМЫЕ ВОПРОСЫ © 2021-2026. Все права защищены. Политика конфиденциальности | Условия предоставления услуг Поиск ПоискInSiteOnChainСоциальнаяНовости Hot to you: Охотники за воздухом Анализ данных Криптознаменитости Детектор-ловушка Русский English 繁體中文 简体中文 日本語 Tiếng Việt العربية 한국어 Bahasa Indonesia हिन्दी اردو Русский

智能索引记录