Galaxy: A panoramic interpretation of the crypto lending market

Author: Zack Pokorny, Galaxy research analyst; compiled by: Golden Finance

Original link: https://www.galaxy.com/insights/research/the-state-of-crypto- lending/

Preface

Lending is a cryptocurrency use case, and they find strong product market fit both on and off-chain, with the market size of the entire category exceeding $64 billion at its peak. The lending market also plays an important role in building a financial ecosystem based on digital assets, enabling users to obtain liquidity of their assets to be deployed in DeFi and traded on-chain and off-chain.

This report explores the on-chain and off-chain cryptocurrency lending markets. The report is divided into two parts:

The first part introduces the history of the cryptocurrency lending market, its players, its historical scale (on-chain and off-chain), and some of the industry’s critical moments.

The second part of the report explores in-depth how some lending products and other sources of leverage operate in on-chain and off-chain environments, users and the risks of each.

The report provides a comprehensive overview of the cryptocurrency lending market, revealing one of the most widely used but opaque areas in the cryptocurrency economy. Crucially, the report provides a rare insight into the size of the off-chain lending market, which has always been an opaque area in the industry.

Key Points

• The overall size of the cryptocurrency lending market is still far below the highs set at the end of the cryptocurrency bull market from 2020 to 2021. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, the total size of the cryptocurrency lending market, including crypto-backed collateralized debt positions (CDP) stablecoins, was US$36.5 billion, 43% lower than the all-time high of US$64.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2021. This decline can be attributed to a substantial decrease in supply-side lending institutions and a significant decrease in demand-side funds, individuals and corporate entities.

• As of the fourth quarter of 2024, the top three CeFi lenders include Tether, Galaxy and Ledn, with the total loan amount of these three CeFi lenders at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024. Together, they account for 88.6% of the CeFi lending market and 27% of the entire crypto lending market, including crypto-backed CDP stablecoins.

• On-chain lending applications have experienced strong growth since the bottom of the bear market of $1.8 billion in the end of the fourth quarter of 2022. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, the total open borrowing of 20 lending applications and 12 blockchains reached US$19.1 billion. This means DeFi open borrowing has increased by 959% in eight quarters.

History and status of the lending market

Currently, there are two main channels for providing cryptocurrency-based lending services: DeFi and CeFi. These two channels have their own characteristics and the products provided are also different. Here is a brief overview of CeFi and DeFi lending:

1. Centralized Finance (CeFi) - a centralized off-chain financial company that provides cryptocurrency and crypto-related asset lending services. Some of these entities use on-chain infrastructure or build the entire business on- chain. CeFi lending is mainly divided into three categories:

• OTC (OTC) – OTC is provided by centralized institutions and provides comprehensive customized lending solutions and products. OTC transactions are conducted bilaterally, allowing customization agreements between borrowers and lenders. The terms of the OTC agreement will be customized according to the specific needs of both parties, including interest rates, term and loan-to- value ratio (LTV). This type of product is usually only for qualified investors and institutions.

• Master Broker – A comprehensive trading platform that provides guaranteed financial funds, transaction execution and custody services. Users can withdraw guaranteed financial funds from the main broker for other purposes or retain them on the platform for trading activities. Main brokers typically provide financing for limited crypto assets and crypto ETFs.

• On-chain private credit – allows users to collect funds on-chain and deploy through off-chain protocols and accounts. In this case, the underlying blockchain actually becomes a crowdsourcing and accounting platform for off- chain credit needs. Debts are often tokenized, either as collateralized debt position (CDP) stablecoins or directly issued in tokens representing the share of the debt pool. The use of benefits is usually narrow.

2. Decentralized Finance (DeFi) – a blockchain-based application driven by smart contracts, allowing users to mortgage borrowing, lending to earn income, or obtain leverage during transactions. The DeFi lending business is unique in its operation 24/7, 7 days a week, offering a wide variety of borrowable and collateral assets, and is completely transparent and auditable by anyone. Lending applications, collateralized debt positions, stablecoins and decentralized exchanges allow users to gain leverage on the chain.

• Lending Application – On-chain application that allows users to deposit collateral assets such as BTC and ETH and borrow other cryptocurrencies. The loan terms are based on the mortgaged assets provided and borrowed assets and are pre-determined through the application's risk assessment. Lending through these applications is similar to traditional over-mortgage loans.

• Collateralized debt position stablecoins – US dollar stablecoins over- collateralized by a single or basket of cryptocurrencies. The principle is similar to over-collateralized loans, but synthetic assets will be issued based on the collateral deposited by users.

• Decentralized Exchanges – Some decentralized exchanges allow users to use leverage to expand their trading positions. Although the functions of decentralized exchanges vary, the role of an exchange that provides margin is similar to that of a CeFi master broker. However, earnings are often not transferable from decentralized exchanges.

The market chart below highlights some of the key players in the CeFi and DeFi crypto lending markets past and present. As crypto asset prices plummet and market liquidity dry up, some of the largest CeFi lenders by loan book size went bankrupt in 2022 and 2023. The most eye-catching one is that Genesis, Celsius Network, BlockFi and Voyager filed for bankruptcy in the past two years. This has caused the total CeFi and DeFi lending market size to plummet by about 78% from its peak in 2022 to bear market trough, and CeFi lending lost 82% of its open borrowing. More information on the history, evolution and scale of the crypto lending market will be covered in the following chapters.

The following table compares some of the largest CeFi cryptocurrency lending institutions in history. Some of these companies provide investors with a variety of services, such as Coinbase, which operates primarily as an exchange but also provides credit to investors through off-market cryptocurrency loans and guaranteed financial funds.

History of cryptocurrency lending

Although on-chain and off-chain crypto lending was not widely used until late 2019/early 2020, some current and historically important players were formed as early as 2012. It is worth noting that Genesis was founded in 2013 and has a loan scale of up to US$14.6 billion. On-chain lending and CDP stablecoin giants such as Aave, Sky (formerly MakerDAO) and Compound Finance were launched on Ethereum between 2017 and 2018. These on-chain lending solutions were only possible after Ethereum and smart contracts were launched in July 2015.

The end of the 2020-2021 bull market marks the beginning of an 18-month turbulent cryptocurrency lending market, a period that has been plagued by bankruptcy. Some important events that have occurred during this period include: the decoupling of Terra stablecoin UST, which eventually became worthless like LUNA; the decoupling of stETH, the largest liquid staked token (LST), and the share price of Grayscale Bitcoin Trust GBTC, trading at a price below the net asset value (NAV) after years of rising premiums.

Lending market size

As measured by end-of-quarter snapshot data, the overall size of the DeFi and CeFi crypto lending markets is still well below the highs set in the first quarter of 2022. This is mainly due to the lack of recovery in CeFi lending after the 2022 bear market and the losses of the largest lenders on the market. The following will explore the scale of the crypto lending market from the perspective of CeFi and on-chain platforms.

Galaxy Research estimates that at its peak, the total loan size of CeFi lenders with data was $34.8 billion; at its lows, the CeFi lending market was estimated to be $6.4 billion (down 82%). As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2024, CeFi's outstanding borrowings totaled US$11.2 billion, down 68% from its historical high and 73% from its bear market trough.

As the CeFi lending market shrinks over the past three years, outstanding loans have been concentrated in the hands of smaller lending institutions. When the CeFi lending market peaked in the first quarter of 2022, the top three lenders (Genesis, BlockFi and Celsius) accounted for 76% of the market share, with them holding $26.4 billion of the $34.8 billion outstanding loans from CeFi lenders. Today, the top three lending institutions (Tether, Galaxy and Ledn) together account for 89% of the market share.

When evaluating the market dominance of one lender relative to another, it is important to pay attention to the differences between each lender, as not all CeFi lenders are the same. Some lenders only offer specific types of loans (e.g., BTC-only collateral products, altcoin collateral products, and cash loans that do not contain stablecoins), serve only specific types of customers (e.g., institutional clients vs. retail clients), and operate only in specific jurisdictions. The combination of these factors makes some lenders larger by default than others.

As shown in the figure below, DeFi lending through on-chain applications such as Aave and Compound has achieved strong growth since the bear market's trough of $1.8 billion in open lending. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2024, the scale of uncleared lending for 20 lending applications and 12 blockchains reached US$19.1 billion. This means that the scale of on-chain and on-app DeFi outstanding lending observed has increased by 959% in the eight quarters since bottoming out. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, outstanding loans through on- chain lending applications were 18% higher than the peak of US$16.2 billion set during the 2020-2021 bull market.

The recovery of DeFi lending is stronger than that of CeFi lending. This can be attributed to the permissionless nature of blockchain-based applications and the survival of lending applications in bear market turmoil that once led to the collapse of major CeFi lenders. Unlike those large CeFi lenders that went bankrupt, large lending applications and markets were not all forced to close, but continued to operate. This fact demonstrates the advantages of design and risk management practices of large on-chain lending applications, as well as algorithmic lending, over-collateralization and supply-demand-based lending models.

The total open borrowings in the cryptocurrency lending market (excluding the market value of crypto-secured CDP stablecoins) peaked at $48.4 billion at the end of the fourth quarter of 2021. Four quarters later, in the fourth quarter of 2022, the cumulative market size bottomed out at US$9.6 billion, down 80% from its peak. Since then, the market size has expanded to US$30.2 billion, mainly due to the expansion of DeFi lending applications, with a growth rate of 214% according to data at the end of the fourth quarter of 2024.

Please note that there may be duplicate calculations between the total size of the CeFi loan book and the amount of the DeFi loan. This is because some CeFi entities rely on DeFi lending applications to provide borrowing services to off-chain customers. For example, suppose a CeFi lender may use its idle BTC to borrow USDC on the chain and then lend that USDC to off-chain borrowers. In this case, the on-chain borrowing of CeFi lending institution will appear in the DeFi open borrowing and appear as an open borrowing to its clients in the lending institution's financial statements. Screening for such dynamics becomes difficult due to the lack of disclosure and on-chain attribution.

A significant change in the cryptocurrency lending market is that DeFi lending applications dominate the CeFi platform as the market emerges from a bear market and begins to recover. During the bull market cycle from 2020 to 2021, DeFi lending applications accounted for only 34% of the total cryptocurrency lending (excluding the market value of crypto-secured CDP stablecoins); as of the fourth quarter of 2024, this proportion had risen to 63%, almost doubled.

After including the market value of crypto-staking CDP stablecoins, the total size of the crypto lending market exceeded US$64.4 billion in the fourth quarter of 2021. When the bear market bottomed out in the third quarter of 2023, the market size was only US$14.2 billion, down 78% from the peak of the bull market. As of the fourth quarter of 2024, the market has rebounded 157% from its lows in the third quarter of 2023, with a total scale of US$36.5 billion.

Note that like borrowing through the DeFi lending application, there may be duplicate calculations between the total size of the CeFi loan book and the supply of CDP stablecoins. This is because some CeFi entities rely on minting CDP stablecoins collateralized with crypto collateral to provide lending services to off-chain customers.

If cryptocurrency collateralized bond stock (CDP) stablecoins are taken into account, the growth trend of on-chain lending market share will be even more significant. As of the end of the fourth quarter of 2024, DeFi lending applications and CDP stablecoins accounted for 69% of the entire market. Its share has been on a steady upward trend since the fourth quarter of 2022. It is worth mentioning that the dominance of CDP stablecoins as a source of cryptocurrency collateral leverage is gradually weakening. This is partly attributed to the improvement of stablecoin liquidity, improvements in lending application parameters, and the introduction of delta-neutral stablecoins like Ethena.

Market data logic and source

The following table highlights the various sources and logic of the above- mentioned DeFi and CeFi lending market data. DeFi and CeFi data can be retrieved through on-chain data. On-chain data is transparent and easy to obtain, while the retrieval of CeFi data is more complex and more difficult to obtain. This is caused by factors such as the accounting method of CeFi lending institutions for their outstanding loans, the frequency of public information, and the general difficulty in obtaining such information.

Venture Capital and Cryptocurrency Lending

From the first quarter of 2022 to the fourth quarter of 2024, CeFi and DeFi lending/credit applications and platforms raised a total of US$1.63 billion through transactions with known financing amounts, totaling 89 transactions. The category raised the highest quarterly financing in the second quarter of 2022, receiving at least $502 million in funding in eight transactions. The fourth quarter of 2023 was the month with the lowest financing amount, with a total financing amount of only US$2.2 million.

Venture capital flowing to lending and credit applications accounts for only a small part of the total venture capital investment in the crypto economy. During the first quarter of 2022 to the fourth quarter of 2024, lending and credit applications accounted for only 2.8% of the total venture capital in the sector on average each quarter. Lending and credit applications accounted for the highest share of total quarterly financing in the fourth quarter of 2022, at 9.75%. And in the most recent quarter, the fourth quarter of 2024, they accounted for only 0.62% of the total financing.

Refer to Galaxy Research’s coverage of the crypto venture capital sector for a more comprehensive understanding of the historical trends in crypto venture capital financing.

What went wrong?

From the second half of 2022 to the beginning of 2023, the cryptocurrency lending market experienced a violent collapse, and industry giants went bankrupt one after another. These giants include BlockFi, Celsius, Genesis and Voyager, which together account for 40% of the entire cryptocurrency lending market and 82% of the CeFi lending market at its peak. The collapse of these lenders is ultimately attributed to the collapse of the entire cryptocurrency market, although their plight has been exacerbated by poor risk management and the acceptance of bad collateral provided by borrowers.

Cryptocurrency Market Crash and Its Impact on Collateral Value

The plunge in asset prices is the main factor leading to a tight credit in the crypto lending market. Excluding BTC, USDC and USDT, the market value of digital assets evaporated nearly US$1.3 trillion (77%) within 406 days after reaching a cycle high on November 9, 2021. These include the evaporation of Terra UST stablecoin worth about $18.7 billion and LUNA tokens worth about $39 billion. This leads to mortgaged assets either becoming worthless or being difficult to deal with as liquidity drys up, and borrowers are trapped in transactions that cannot make ends meet.

Grayscale's Bitcoin Trust and Liquid Staked ETH

The downward trend in the market has led to the collateral assets widely used by institutional borrowers becoming "toxic". It is worth noting that illicit assets such as stETH, GBTC and ASIC Bitcoin mining machines have led to accelerated devaluation of widely used collateral.

The problem with stETH and GBTC is that they do not give investors the privilege of redeeming their underlying assets: stETH redeem ETH, GBTC redeem BTC. At that time, the Ethereum beacon chain pledge withdrawal was not enabled, and users could not withdraw the ETH they locked in the pledge contract. Due to product structure limitations, GBTC did not allow investors to withdraw BTC under each share. This means that the secondary market liquidity of stETH and GBTC is much lower than that of their underlying assets and has to bear full selling pressure. The end result is that these assets are trading at lower prices than their underlying value, exacerbating the already enormous pressure on collateral for crypto assets. As the market closed its position, the discount rate of stETH once fell to 6.25%, and the discount rate of GBTC once reached 48.9%.

Bitcoin ASIC

Similar situations also occur in Bitcoin ASIC mining machine mortgage loans issued to miners. There are two problems with ASIC mining machines as collateral: 1) The benefits they generate and their ultimate value are closely related to the price of BTC and the difficulty of mining; 2) The launch of the new generation of mining machines has put pressure on the value of the older generation of mining machines. These factors, coupled with the poor liquidity of the mining machine itself, have caused the value of the mining machine to fall sharply compared to Bitcoin, or in other words, the mining machine as collateral cannot be disposed of at all.

The computing power price is an indicator to measure the estimated daily income of an ASIC mining machine per unit of computing power (before deducting mining costs). It is usually expressed in USD/(TH/s) or USD/(PH/s). For example, if the computing power price is USD 100/PH/s, the estimated daily income is USD 10 (excluding operating costs). This figure, combined with other factors, can be used to calculate and discount future gains/profits, resulting in the value of the miner.

The following figure highlights the trends in computing power prices and difficulty during the 2022 bear market. In November 2021, the Bitcoin cycle high closed at $67,600, and the computing power price was $403 per PH/s, with a difficulty of about 21.7 trillion hash value. In the following 13 months, Bitcoin price fell 75% to around $16,600, with a 58% increase in difficulty, resulting in a 86% drop in computing power prices and ASIC's estimated revenue. Note the 11% difference between Bitcoin’s performance and the plunge in computing power prices. This difference is due to the increase in mining difficulty. The increase in difficulty means intensifying competition among miners, coupled with the fixed daily issuance of Bitcoin, ultimately resulting in a decrease in BTC generated by each unit of hash computing power on the network, and thus a decrease in revenue. This dynamic is a factor that has caused huge losses to ASIC values.

The decline in ASIC mining machine revenue has negatively affected its selling price. Each mining machine classified by efficiency experiences a decline of 85% to 91% from its cycle high to the low of Bitcoin price in December 2022. Therefore, in some cases, the collateral loan value provided to miners is lost by more than 90%. It should be noted that this chart shows only the most commonly used ASIC miners before and during bear markets, which are more likely to be used as collateral for miners’ loans.

The decline in BTC prices and rising mining difficulties are not the only resistance faced by ASIC values. In 2021 and 2022, new and more efficient mining machines are on the market, including the first miner with a J/TH below 21 launched by Bitmain in August 2022. This puts more pressure on older miners used as collateral because they have relatively low mining appeal.

Poor risk management

To make matters worse, many well-known cryptocurrency lending institutions at that time had poor risk management measures. However, after the bear market, the industry has begun self-regulation in the absence of clear regulatory guidelines; this includes stricter risk management and more thorough due diligence. Nevertheless, the lack of risk management in lending institutions and their poor execution played an important role in the digital asset crash in 2022 and 2023.

Asset and Liability Management

Lenders before the FTX era failed to properly manage the liquidity of their books. Basically, many institutions lend on time and make short-term loans, hoping to replenish liquidity when needed. However, when lenders need to recover large amounts of money, there is not enough liquidity to meet demand. Borrowers are either heavily in debt and unable to repay the borrowed funds or hold term loans that lenders cannot recover.

Poor credit risk management

Prior to the advent of FTX, it was a common practice for cryptocurrency lenders. For example, it is estimated that up to 36.6% of Celsius’ institutional loans are held by unsecured borrowers, and BlockFi also offers unsecured loans to FTX. The review process of lenders is also flawed, failing to fully verify whether the counterparty is solvency and lending funds to unqualified borrowers.

Weak internal risk control

The lack of asset-liability mismatch and credit risk management is attributed to poor internal risk control. Before the FTX era, many lenders did not have clear risk parameters or loan risk limit templates. The problems of poor internal control are mostly unique to the company, not common problems in the entire industry. While some lenders have been victims of the widespread spread of the cryptocurrency market crash in 2022, their lending standards and controls have helped them through the bear market.

How will the cryptocurrency lending market develop next?

Now that the market has begun to recover, cryptocurrency lending is also showing an upward trend, some key changes need to be paid attention to in the coming year. The details are as follows:

For CeFi lending, traditional institutions like Cantor Fitzgerald, major lending institutions and market-entering banks create opportunities to acquire funds through existing banking channels, which intensifies competition and reduces the cost of funds. As these institutions bring strong financial resources and strong market infrastructure to the field, this increased competition and access to low-cost funds also enhances liquidity and access to services/scale. These entities enter the crypto economy out of personal interests and regulatory measures. Most notably, the SEC revoked SAB-121 by issuing SAB-122, which added a good wind to crypto lending, as SAB-121 canceled the requirement for listed companies (many banks are listed) to list customers’ digital assets on their own balance sheets. This requirement of SAB-121, combined with separate bank capital requirements, actually makes it nearly impossible for banks to provide crypto-custodial services, hindering their ability to provide ancillary services such as loans. In addition, the rise of Bitcoin ETP in the United States has enabled high-quality lending platforms to enter and provide leverage and lending with ETP as collateral, further expanding the crypto-related lending market.

For on-chain private credit, the future depends on tokenization, programmability, practicality and the resulting increase in benefits. The tokenization of off-chain debt introduces elements of transparency and automation that traditional debt tools do not have. The combination of these two factors can enable better risk management, thereby improving lenders’ risk tolerance and reducing management costs, allowing lenders to further reduce the risk curve and gain more benefits. In addition, the practicality of private credit tokens in the on-chain economy will continue to expand. As collateral for lending applications or minting CDP stablecoins, it is likely to be the first major use case for these tokens on the chain.

For DeFi lending, the future lies in expanding its institutional user base and centralized off-chain companies built on the lending application technology stack. The increase in institutional adoption rates stems from 1) financial companies becoming more familiar with the risks of blockchain and on-chain applications, 2) supplementing the benefits of off-chain operations with on- chain outlets, 3) the clearness of major government regulatory oversight of digital assets, and 4) the liquidity base and the relative amount of on-chain lending activities relative to off-chain lending activities. In addition, we need to be wary of centralized companies built on lending application technology stacks. As these companies issue assets (such as private credit tokens) and transfer more of their business to the chain, it is possible that they want to use blockchain infrastructure to support the utility of their tokens and company operations. An example is Ondo Finance's Flux protocol, which is a fork of Compound v2, designed to support the utility of its OUSG Treasury Tokens.

Data-driven cryptocurrency lending insights

The following highlights historical trends in on-chain and off-chain lending activities, including interest rates, the size of various CDP stablecoins, and the assets most commonly borrowed and used as collateral.

Activity

Lending is the largest DeFi category of all blockchains, while Ethereum is the largest lending chain with asset deposits and borrowing scale. As of March 31, 2025, the total assets stored on the 12 Ethereum EVM-based L1 and L2 blockchains were US$33.9 billion. There are another $2.99 ​​billion in deposits on Solana, not shown in the picture below. Ethereum L1 deposits of $30 billion (81%). Aave V3 on Ethereum L1 is the largest lending market, with total deposits of US$23.6 billion as of March 31, 2025. It should be noted that loan application deposits cover assets used as collateral and assets deposited only for the opportunity to obtain income. The following details of assets that are actively used as collateral on Ethereum Aave V3.

Packaged Bitcoin tokens (WBTC, cbBTC and tBTC), ETH, and ETH liquidity (re)staking tokens (stETH, rETH, ETHx, cbETH, osETH and eETH) are the most commonly used collateral in Ethereum Aave V3. There are total mortgage assets worth $13.5 billion, and borrowings are used to secure these assets. Total borrowings for these assets are worth US$8.9 billion, with an average loan-to- value ratio (LTV) of 65.9%.

As of March 31, 2025, outstanding borrowings on the 13 chains observed in the supply analysis, including Solana, which has a $1.13 billion loan, were $15.33 billion. Cumulatively, this means that all chains are 41.45%. On Aave V3 on Ethereum alone, there are $8.9 billion (58%) of outstanding borrowings. Of the 12 EVM chains observed, the total outstanding borrowings reached an all-time high of USD 20.06 billion on January 24, 2022.

Stablecoins and non-staked ETH are the most borrowed assets on the Ethereum Aave V3 platform. This is because many users use their cryptocurrency as collateral to obtain US dollar liquidity, thereby providing funds for new transactions; while borrowing ETH with liquidity (re)staking allows users to obtain leveraged exposure to ETH or short ETH at a lower net arbitrage cost. In this case, the built-in staking yield of liquidity (re)staking tokens denominated in ETH can partially compensate for the cost of ETH borrowing. More details on this and other on-chain rates will be covered below.

interest rate

This section details interest rates and stability fees for major stablecoins (including USDT, USDC, GHO and DAI/USDS, as well as BTC and ETH) in the on- chain lending market and off-chain venues.

On-chain interest rate

The following is a look at the interest rates and stability fees of stablecoins, ETH, (W)BTC in multiple chains and on-chain lending markets.

Stable Coin

As of March 31, 2025, the weighted average lending rate and stability fees of Ethereum main online stablecoins were calculated as 5.67% in terms of borrowing amount, using a 30-day moving average. The lending rates of on-chain stablecoins reflect the prices of digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum to a large extent. As asset values ​​appreciate, lending rates usually rise, and vice versa.

The following chart lists the annual interest rates for stablecoins in lending applications such as Aave and Compound, as well as the stability fees for CDP stablecoins such as DAI/USDS and GHO. The chart focuses on comparing the borrowing costs of LP deposits in lending applications with the cost of minting CDP stablecoins. It should be noted that compared with lending applications, the stable fee volatility of CDP stablecoins is relatively small compared to lending and lending. This is because their interest rates are determined differently: the interest rates used by lending are driven by the market, while the interest rates of CDP stablecoins are determined through periodic governance proposals or updates.

BTC

The following figure shows the weighted lending rate of WBTC on the lending application on multiple lending applications and blockchains. Due to the low borrowing demand for this asset, the on-chain WBTC is usually lower in borrowing costs. As mentioned earlier, the packaged Bitcoin tokens are mainly used for collateral in the on-chain lending market, and their utilization rate is not high, thus pushing up lending costs. In addition, the on-chain BTC’s borrowing costs lack volatility, which is usually caused by frequent borrowing and repaying debts by users.

In the context of on-chain lending BTC, it should be noted that native BTC is not compatible with blockchains such as Ethereum that support smart contracts. Therefore, packaging Bitcoin tokens are used in the on-chain lending market (in Ethereum, packaging Bitcoin tokens are ERC-20 stablecoins bound to native BTC). This adds risk to on-chain BTC lending, which is not common in off-chain BTC lending (may include native BTC).

ETH and stETH

The following figure shows the weighted lending rates for ETH and stETH lending applications on multiple blockchains. Although these tokens are ETH- centric (whether it is directly centered on ETH or locking ETH on the beacon chain in the form of a credential token), there are differences between their borrowing costs. This is due to the differences in interest rate curves and utilization rates for different lending applications. More content about the interest rate curve mechanism will be introduced in the later section detailing the application of on-chain lending.

In Ethereum’s largest lending market, unsolicited ETH is borrowed in large quantities, while Ethereum LST becomes the main collateral asset. By using LST (annual interest rate for network pledges) as collateral, users are able to obtain ETH loans at a lower net borrowing rate (usually negative). This cost efficiency has spawned a circular strategy: users repeatedly use LST as collateral to borrow unsolicited ETH, staking, and then recycle the obtained LST to borrow more ETH, thereby amplifying their exposure to the annual interest rate of ETH pledge. The figure shows the net weighted average cost of borrowing ETH using stETH as collateral, which is derived from the weighted average borrowing annual interest rate of stETH minus the pledge annual interest rate of stETH and its lending supply rate.

OTC interest rate

The following section focuses on off-chain and off-market lending rates for USDC, USDT, BTC and ETH and compares them with corresponding on-chain rates.

Stable Coin

Off-chain stablecoin interest rates are similar to on-chain stablecoin interest rates, closely tracking cryptocurrency price trends and being driven by leverage demand. For example, off-chain stablecoin rates bottomed out in the summer of 2023 months after the FTX crash triggered a cryptocurrency credit crisis and a bear market. Since then, off-chain interest rates have continued to rise, starting specifically in March 2024, marking the beginning of the current bull market. Intrinsically more volatile on-chain rates soared above 15%, while OTC rates remained at a low range of 7% to 10%. By summer, both on-chain and over-the-counter interest rates have returned to normal in the range-volatility price trend. Overall, the stable interest rates on-chain and over-the-counter trading tend to change synchronously, and the interest rates on-the-counter trading are less fluctuating.

Note that the off-chain exchange rates of USDC and USDT are roughly equal and have similar adjustment rhythms, while the on-chain exchange rates fluctuate more and are not always equal. This is because the relative risks and utility of these stablecoins on-chain are different from the purpose of their borrowing through off-chain and how off-chain lenders assess their risks.

USDC

USDT

Bitcoin

BTC interest rates show a significant difference between on-chain and off- market markets. In the OTC market, BTC demand is mainly driven by two factors: the demand for shorting BTC and the use of BTC as collateral for stablecoin/cash loans. For example, after the FTX crash in 2022, over-the- counter market interest rates soared as demand for shorting BTC surged. Similarly, in the early stages of the bull market in February 2024, over-the- counter market interest rates also rose as companies sought to borrow BTC as collateral to obtain stablecoins or cash loans. In contrast, on-chain BTC interest rates remain basically stable. The on-chain market lacks significant demand and limited earnings opportunities, and most on-chain participants only use BTC as collateral for US dollar liquidity.

Ethereum

Off-chain ETH rates are usually the most stable because ETH staking yields provide the benchmark interest rate that markets tend to follow. On-chain ETH rates are usually close to pledge yields because lenders are motivated to lend at prices below pledge rates, while borrowers have limited motivation to borrow ETH because there is a lack of better yield opportunities than pledges. In the OTC market (OTC), similar dynamics are also presented, although less obvious. In bear markets, the demand for shorting ETH increases; in bull markets, the demand for borrowing ETH as collateral for stablecoins increases. However, in the OTC market, loans with ETH-collateralized loans are less common than those with BTC-collateralized loans, because companies tend to pledge their assets rather than use them as collateral.

CDP stablecoin

As of March 31, 2025, the total supply of major CDP stablecoins was US$9.6 billion. Sky's DAI/USDS is the largest CDP stablecoin with a supply of $8.7 billion, covering all collateral types (such as risk-weighted assets, private credit and cryptocurrencies). Although the total supply of stablecoins is close to an all-time high, CDP stablecoins are still 46% below the high of $17.6 billion set in early January 2022.

As of March 31, 2025, the share of CDP stablecoins in the total market value of stablecoins also fell from a high of 10.3% to only 4.1%.这是由于USDT等中心化稳定币和USDe等收益型稳定币的地位日益提高，再加上作为链上美元流动性来源的CDP 稳定币需求低迷。

下图显示了CDP 稳定币的加密抵押市值（即直接由加密资产支持的CDP 稳定币的市值）。这类CDP 稳定币的市值在2022 年1 月达到173 亿美元后，已下跌55%至79 亿美元。

加密抵押CDP 稳定币的市值从历史高点回落至2022 年至2023 年的熊市，与借贷应用程序上的开放借款情况一致，突显了它们作为链上信贷来源的功能和用途之间的相似性。

下图展示了比特币和以太坊金库中CDP 稳定币稳定费的非汇总视图。它们代表了通过观察的平台铸造比特币和以太坊CDP 稳定币的成本。请注意，尽管ETH 和BTC 金库中的资产被用作抵押品来铸造相同的合成资产，但其稳定费存在差异。这是一些CDP 稳定币相对于其借贷应用替代方案的一个显著特征，在这些替代方案中，抵押资产而非借入资产决定了铸造利率。更多关于这一点以及CDP 稳定币的内容，将在后面详细介绍链上借贷机制的部分中介绍。

加密货币借贷DeFi 和CeFi 运作机制详解

本部分涵盖了CeFi 和DeFi 借贷的各个垂直领域、它们的运作方式、所涉及的风险以及DeFi 市场如何补充链下借贷业务。

为什么要借出和借入加密货币？

在深入探讨加密货币的借贷方式之前，我们先来了解一下企业和个人参与加密货币借贷的原因。原因包括：

• 获得其代币的流动性——允许借款人无需出售其资产即可获得流动性，保持未来上涨的潜力。

• 获取其货币的收益——允许贷方从其闲置资产中赚取被动利息。

• 利用杠杆进行交易——个人可以通过借入资金进行交易来扩大其头寸规模。

• 对冲多头风险敞口——使个人能够通过建立抵消空头头寸、有效管理投资组合delta 和减少方向性风险敞口来降低现有多头头寸的风险。

• 获得空头敞口——使交易者能够通过借入和出售他们预计稍后回购的资产，根据预期的价格下跌来建立头寸。

• 为企业运营提供融资——允许企业获得可用于资助运营的流动资金。

根据借款/贷款的具体原因，借款人或贷款人拥有的资产及其持有地点以及他们希望借入或借出的资本数额都会影响最佳使用渠道。

CeFi 借贷

CeFi 借贷可分为三类，场外交易(OTC)、大宗经纪和链上私人信贷。

场外借贷

以下重点介绍CeFi OTC 借贷细节概览：

它是如何运作的？交易对手通过双边协议相互对接。每笔交易均单独协商并记录，通常通过语音或聊天（例如电话或视频通话，或通过电子邮件或短信应用程序）进行。链上借款人的抵押品通常由贷款人控制的多重签名机构持有。在某些三方协议的情况下，借款人、贷款人和托管人可以各自控制多重签名机构的密钥。

谁提供和使用这项服务？该领域一些主要的场外交易借贷机构包括美国的Galaxy 和Coinbase；全球其他大型交易所也提供类似的服务。借款人通常是对冲基金、高净值个人、家族办公室、矿工以及符合合格合约参与者(ECP) 要求的其他加密货币或加密货币相关公司。

借入资金的用例有哪些？贷款一旦发放，借款人通常可以自由支配贷款收益。一些常见的用途包括杠杆交易、融资操作或为其他贷款再融资。

场外借贷的其他细节：一些场外借贷机构使用链上应用程序来补充其业务。这有利于提高其账簿的透明度和核算能力，使其能够全天候运营，进行清算和任何预定操作，并在自由开放的基础设施上构建产品。

面向个人和小型企业的场外贷款：虽然机构层面的活动是场外贷款市场的主要驱动力，但个人和小型企业也活跃于该领域。一些CeFi 贷款机构，例如Ledn、Unchained 和Arch，为希望使用加密货币作为抵押品（例如购房和创业）的个人提供服务。这类客户通常无法获得传统银行的金融服务，因为传统银行目前不接受数字资产作为抵押品。因此，这些贷款机构充当了这类借款人的生命线，他们通常拥有丰富的数字资产，但不一定拥有法定货币。

主经纪商业务

以下重点介绍传统CeFi 主经纪商业务的细节概览：

它是如何运作的？在主经纪商开户的公司可以对加密货币ETF进行定向持仓。ETF受类型和发行人限制，只有特定机构发行的比特币ETF才可接受抵押。通常，只需30-50%的保证金即可维持持仓。持仓通常每日按市价计算，并每日进行补充保证金计算。

谁提供/使用它？ Fidelity、Marex 和Hidden Road 等机构提供加密货币ETF 的传统主经纪商服务。

借入资金的用途有哪些？通常用于交易或短期融资（开放式）。

加密Prime

加密货币ETF提供的类似Prime服务也适用于现货加密货币。然而，只有少数平台（例如Coinbase Prime和Hidden Road）提供此类服务。现货加密货币Prime经纪商服务的设置与ETF的传统服务类似，主要区别在于更保守的保证金要求和贷款价值比（LTV）。

链上私人信用

链上私人信贷在2021年迅速流行起来，它允许用户在链上汇集资金，并通过链下协议和账户进行部署。在这种情况下，底层区块链实际上成为了链下信贷需求的众包和会计平台。cDeFi公司一直是此类贷款的主要推动者，管理贷款生命周期的链上和链下两端——通常与链下合作伙伴合作。链上业务包括启动智能合约、为每笔贷款设计代币，以及运行支持链上应用所需的基础设施。链下业务包括吸引借款人、建立必要的法律渠道以筹集链上资金，以及建立资金在链上/链下转移所需的流程和基础设施。

所得款项的用途通常很狭窄，从企业初创资金到房地产过桥贷款和国库券基金，不一而足，贷款条款以借款人对借款人的方式制定。历史上，稳定币主要用于此类应用。这些产品的链下部分带来了独特的风险，包括链上筹集的贷款资金的可审计性和透明度，以及贷款本身的绩效。在某些情况下，由于缺乏或难以对链下资金进行审计，借款人将贷款资金滥用于贷款协议范围之外的用途，这带来了问题。

私人信贷和稳定币抵押品

链上私人信贷在DeFi中被独特地应用为收益型稳定币抵押品，其中链下债务和利息支撑链上稳定币。这种模式在Sky和Centrifuge（一家链上私人信贷和RWA发行机构）之间最为常见。Sky将一部分DAI/USDS分配给Centrifuge上的分配者，这些分配者将这些稳定币用于具有投资级评级的链下结构化信贷产品、房地产融资和其他应用。然后，分配者将发行给他们的DAI本金以及其在链下债务协议中赚取的利息支付给Sky协议。这种用链下债务支撑链上资产的模式与传统的抵押债务头寸（CDP）稳定币模式并无二致，后者在链上债务作为稳定币的抵押品。

DeFi借贷

一些通过链下渠道存在的借贷产品和服务，也以无需许可的智能合约应用的形式存在。值得注意的是，像Aave 这样的借贷应用，以及像Sky 这样的抵押债务头寸(CDP) 稳定币发行商，允许用户以链上资产作为抵押进行借贷。获取链上信贷的替代方式，例如永续合约dexes，允许用户根据个性化需求（例如杠杆交易）获取资金。虽然也提供类似的服务，但借贷应用的链上特性以及在链上获取其他信贷的方式，使其与中心化的链下替代方案有着一系列关键区别。下表重点介绍了其中一些区别：

DeFi 借贷如何运作？

DeFi 借贷功能与有担保的链下借贷类似。主要区别在于：1）DeFi 借贷通过智能合约以程序化方式运行，执行预先设定的参数集，而非人工引导的流程；2）借款人风险由借款人承保；3）采用风险补偿措施（例如贷款人收益和清算人奖励）。

这些参数包括利率曲线、贷款价值比、清算门槛等要素，是在资产层面设计的，用于管理风险、建立激励机制，并促进贷款市场效率最大化。

通过资产参数设置风险护栏意味着链上和链下借贷在最终承保风险的位置和方式上存在差异。链下借贷的风险通过贷款价值比(LTV) 和利率等因素按借款人逐一承保，同时考虑借款人的历史记录、抵押品/借入资产以及贷款期限。另一方面，链上借贷的风险评估完全基于抵押品/借入资产的组合。也就是说，每个使用相同抵押品和借入资产的借款人，从贷款价值比、利率和所有其他参数来看，其贷款都完全相同。这是因为用户、他们偿还借款资金的能力以及贷款期限并非对应用程序功能或贷款人资本构成生存威胁的因素。真正构成威胁的其实是他们提供的抵押资产和借入的资产，因为一旦出现贷款减值，抵押品清算将使贷款人和应用程序保持完整。

每个参数都是完全透明且预先已知的，它们适用于DeFi 借贷流程的三个步骤中的一个或多个：

• 存入抵押资产

• 选择借入资产

• 偿还贷款和清算

下面从资产参数和管理DeFi贷款的风险管理措施的角度来深入探讨DeFi贷款的生命周期。

存入抵押资产

实际上，DeFi 中的所有借贷活动都存在超额抵押。这要求用户预先抵押一些资产作为借款抵押。这些抵押资产在借款期间会被锁定在应用程序上，并借给借款用户，从而最大限度地提高应用程序上所有资金的使用效率。用户对抵押资产的选择决定了以下参数，这些参数因资产而异：

• 供给年利率(APR) – 用户存入抵押品所获得的收益率，是借入年利率(APR) 的函数。这些存款产生的收益率是借款人支付的利息。此收益率是已提供抵押品资产的原生收益率（例如stETH 的质押收益率）的补充。应用程序认为资产的风险越高，则供给年利率相对于其利用率的比率就越高。这样做是为了补偿供应商承担的风险，并管理应用程序在借入/流动性功能方面的风险。

• 贷款价值比(LTV) – 用户以其抵押品可借入的最高相对价值。例如，如果抵押品资产的LTV 为50%，则用户每存入一美元抵押品最多可借入50 美分。特定抵押品资产的LTV 越低，应用程序认为其风险越高，反之亦然。

• 清算阈值——当用户的贷款价值比(LTV) 达到该阈值时，其抵押品将被清算并返还给贷款人/清算人。清算阈值始终高于最高LTV。通常，抵押资产的波动性和风险与其最高LTV 和清算阈值之间的利差直接相关。这样做是为了创建一个安全缓冲，以防止在以最高LTV 借款时立即被清算。

• 清算罚金——以清算资产金额的百分比表示，清算罚金是支付给清算用户抵押品的实体的奖励。清算罚金也被称为“清算差价”，因为它代表了清算人购买用户抵押品时可以享受的折扣百分比。例如，如果用户持有可清算抵押品，市场价值为100 美元，罚金为5%，清算人可以以95 美元的价格买入，然后以市场价值出售，赚取差价。借贷应用程序通常会从奖励中抽取一定费用。一些借贷应用程序使用拍卖而非硬编码清算罚金，让市场来决定合适的折扣。抵押品资产的清算罚金越高，应用程序认为其风险就越大。这样做是为了充分激励抵押品的清算，并限制出现坏账的可能性。

• 供应上限——某些借贷应用程序的抵押资产设有严格的存款限额，旨在限制用户对该资产的敞口。供应上限可以限制用户可存入的某种抵押资产的金额。较低的供应上限可能是由于该资产的风险状况，应用程序会限制其对该资产的敞口。这也可能表明该资产的市值相对较小，应用程序不希望用户存入超过其总价值一定比例的资产。

• 抵押品权重和LTV乘数——应用于存款人抵押品价值的因素，限制其用于风险规避的程度，或使其有权获得更高的最高贷款价值比(LTV)，进而提高清算门槛。应用程序认为风险较高的资产的权重小于1，以便在其市值和可用于借款的份额之间建立缓冲。例如，价值100 美元的抵押品，其权重为0.85，借款能力为85 美元，最高贷款价值比(LTV) 即应用于该抵押品。抵押品<>借入借款资产对，如果借贷应用程序发现其价值相关性较高（例如，用以太坊LST 借入ETH），则用户有权享受优先的最高贷款价值比(LTV)，因为抵押品和借款资产不太可能快速升值或贬值。LTV 乘数和抵押品权重仅适用于特定资产，并非所有借贷应用程序都使用。

• 隔离状态——处于隔离状态的资产无法与其他抵押资产配对以提供贷款。此外，处于隔离状态的抵押资产的借贷额度受限于特定的债务上限，这限制了其借贷范围。在其他情况下，隔离状态意味着只能借入一项资产，并且借入后，用户的投资组合中将无法再借入其他资产。在使用抵押品权重的应用中，隔离资产的权重为0。隔离资产是一种工具，可以将新兴或波动性较大的资产以风险规避的方式引入借贷应用；它还允许应用托管更多类型的资产，同时补偿这样做的风险。

控制抵押资产的具体参数集合及其精确值因应用程序、区块链和资产而异。例如，OP 主网Aave V3 上的USDC 与以太坊上的USDC 具有不同的参数，因为它们是两种不同的代币（在不同的区块链上持有不同的代币合约地址），并且存在于不同的生态系统中；Solana 上的MarginFi 使用抵押品权重来管理风险，而Aave 则不使用。

这些参数均由算法强制执行，仅随抵押品/借入资产的组合而变化。也就是说，从应用程序的角度来看，所有操作，特别是参数的执行和必要的会计以及抵押品收益分配，都是通过智能合约自主完成的；并且每个存入相同抵押品资产/借入相同资产的用户都受相同的预定参数约束。信用评分、价值和其他用于获得贷款的链下指标不被使用，因为应用程序本身不受任何约束，只需要存入抵押品即可借款。同样的原则也适用于借入资产。然而，这些应用程序所在的网络可能会引入审查因素，尽管这些因素与DeFi 借贷本身无关（例如OFAC 制裁）。

决定其参数值的基础抵押资产的“质量”和风险通过多项要素进行评估，包括但不限于以下[ 1 ] [ 2 ]：

• 资产流动性/市场深度及市场深度恢复时间

• 资产价格波动

• 资产市值

• 交易对手风险（资产如何以及由谁管理）

• 智能合约风险（资产底层代码的完整性）

• 清算人执行能力（指定清算人清算资产的速度）

• 预言机对其抵押资产定价的信心

特定贷款申请所概述的抵押资产的类似风险也决定了借入资产的参数，这将在下一节中介绍。

选择借入资产

用户存入抵押品后，即可选择借入的资产。为了降低风险，一些抵押品和借入资产对被设定为固定市场（例如Compound V3 和Aave 的Lido市场），其中提供的抵押品只能用于借入隔离池中的单一资产或指定资产集合；还有一些是自由范围的，任何抵押品资产都可用于在应用程序上借入任何资产。借款人可以自由地将借入的资产用于任何目的，并完全拥有这些资产的所有权。用户借入的资产决定了以下四个组成部分的任意组合：

• 借款 年利率(APR) – 借入特定资产的名义年化成本。借款人支付的利息由借贷应用程序（以准备金率的形式）和存入借入资产的用户（以供给年利率的形式）分摊。在某些应用程序中，用户可以选择稳定利率贷款，即短期内支付的利率固定，但长期内可以根据市场情况的变化进行重新平衡；也可以选择浮动利率贷款，即支付的利率随市场实时波动。绝大多数链上借款都是浮动利率贷款，因为固定借款利率通常远高于浮动利率，而且有些应用程序不提供固定利率。所有借入相同资产的用户都支付相同的利率，该利率由应用程序对借入资产的感知风险和市场对该资产的需求决定。应用程序认为风险较高的资产的借款曲线会更高，反之亦然。贷款申请使用其对特定资产的潜在风险评估来确定利率曲线。

• 准备金系数——借款人支付的利息中，分配给借贷应用程序、其DAO（去中心化自治组织）或应用程序维护的其他资金的份额。它以借款人支付利息的百分比表示。

• 负债权重——应用于存款人抵押品价值的系数，用于限制其抵押品的借贷额度。例如，如果借入资产价值100 美元，负债权重为1.15，则借入价值为115 美元，该借入价值将计入贷款价值比(LTV)。该系数可用作风险缓释工具，用于评估被认为对贷款申请构成风险的借入资产。

• 借款上限——一些借贷应用程序对借入资产设有硬性限制，旨在限制用户的风险敞口；这样做的目的是为了流动性管理和缓解破产风险。如果流动性不足，硬性借款上限可以限制用户可以借入的资产数量。其他应用程序则设有“软性”借款上限，借款限额仅受提供给协议的资产数量的约束。在这种情况下，协议支持无限量的资产供应和借款，但用户只能在资产供应充足且流动性充足的范围内借款。硬性借款上限通常低于其相应的供应上限，并且永远不会更高。需要注意的是，借款上限通常是全局适用的，而不是针对每个用户的（即，单个用户最多可以借入资产可用流动性或借款上限的100%，前提是他们有抵押品。应用程序通常不限制单笔借款的规模）。

这些组成部分均基于借贷应用程序对借入资产的感知风险、其目标流动性水平、借贷方和应用程序本身的相对收益，以及其针对同一市场中竞争对手应用程序的贷款成本定位策略。借入资产的风险、控制这些风险的具体参数集合及其精确值因应用程序、网络和资产而异。

计算链上利率

影响链上借款人支付的利率的关键因素有两个：1）利用率和最优利率；2）利率曲线的斜率计算。这两个因素因资产和借贷应用而异。例如，以太坊上Aave V3 上WBTC 的最优利率和利率曲线与USDC 的有所不同；以太坊上Aave V3 上USDC 的借款利率曲线与OP 主网上Aave V3 上USDC 的借款利率曲线也有所不同。

利用率和最佳费率

链上借贷市场的利用率反映了资产在应用程序内的相对流动性。它通常计算为需求/供应，其中需求是借入资产的金额，供应是存入协议的资产金额（包括借款人存入的抵押品）。以美元或本国单位表示的资产的直接流动性仅仅是供应- 需求。在某些情况下，这些计算的供应方将包括储备金或其他特定协议特有的因素。因此，高利用率表明相对流动性较低，因为借入的资产越多，申请中用于提现、清算和额外借入的资金就越少，反之亦然。利用率用于确定用户沿着资产利率曲线支付的精确利率，利用率越高，利率就越高。支付的利率也会随着供求关系的变化而实时波动。利率的变化可以以网络区块间隔（新区块添加到链中的时间）或用户提供/偿还和借入资产的频率为单位进行。

最优利率或拐点利率（有时显示为拐点）是指利用率，超过该利用率时，利率曲线的斜率会变陡，借入利率计算也会发生变化。它决定了借入曲线的斜率，也是给定资产的目标利用率（或相对流动性和利率目标）。波动性较大、流动性较差的资产具有较低的最优利率，目标是降低利用率，以确保应用程序有足够的流动性。当利用率> 最优利率时，借入曲线会变得更陡峭，以激励存款和贷款偿还（增加供应并减少需求）并抑制新的借入（限制净新增需求），从而使利用率下降至目标利率。当利用率< 最优利率时，借入曲线会变得更平缓，以激励借款并将利用率提高至目标利率，而不会通过新的增量借款将利率推高过高。

利率斜率计算

每个贷款应用程序都有一个独特的利率确定方程，该方程会根据感知的资产风险和资产类型而变化[ 1 ]，但它们都受利用率和最优利率的影响，并且在实际利用率超过最优利率后会变得更陡峭。贷款应用程序通常会为每种资产类型设置多条利率曲线，以补偿其各种风险。例如，一个应用程序可以针对美元稳定币分别设置一条低利率曲线和一条高利率曲线，具体取决于它如何看待每种稳定币的风险。以下是一些用于构建某些贷款应用程序利率曲线的基准方程：

这些借入利率方程大致呈现下方示例曲线的形状。请注意，最优利率上方和下方的斜率是如何以不同的线表示的。这是因为计算每个斜率方程时使用了不同的斜率方程。

利率曲线的平缓和陡峭两段与最优利用率相结合，形成了一种自我调节机制，通过激励驱动，自主管理相对协议流动性/贷款人收入以及存款的资本效率。协议流动性和贷款人收入通过借入的存款资产目标份额（最优利率）来维持，而最优利率则通过动态利率曲线来执行。流动性短缺风险较高的资产，其曲线将非常陡峭，超出最优利率，以充分补偿这种动态变化。因此，在链上借贷中，利率是流动性管理、风险补偿和资本效率管理的工具。所有其他参数都用于平衡应用程序对特定资产的风险敞口，限制坏账累积的可能性，减轻无法清算用户抵押品（或以损害借款用户或贷款人资金为代价）的风险，以及管理其他风险。

偿还贷款和清算

链上借贷流程的最后一步是偿还贷款，在最坏的情况下，进行清算。

Pay off debts

所有债务均以借入的资产偿还。例如，USDC 贷款的本金和利息必须以USDC 支付，依此类推。此外，只要借款人需要，贷款期限即可无限期，且没有固定的本金和利息偿还时间表；用户可以自由选择以任何频率或金额偿还债务。然而，所有贷款均根据未偿还的借款金额累积利息，这与抵押品和借入资产相对价值的波动共同影响其债务的健康度。

健康系数是衡量借款人清算风险的指标。它基于借款人的抵押品和借入资产的参数得出，使用借入资产的价值加上相对于借款人抵押品价值的应计利息。在价格波动剧烈的加密货币借贷环境中，这是一个重要的考虑因素，因为如果借款人的抵押品价值相对于借入资产暴跌，借款人可能会被清算；但如果借入资产的价值相对于抵押品上涨，借款人也可能被清算。在这两种情况下，抵押品的价值都不足以保证贷款获得足够的抵押。对于大多数应用而言，健康系数为0 或1 都会导致清算。下表重点介绍了Aave 和MarginFi 如何计算贷款的健康状况。

抵押资产的原生收益和/或借贷应用程序的供给年利率(APR) 会被计入其价值。例如，用户的stETH 抵押品的价值，除了借入stETH 的利息支付带来的供给年利率(APY) 外，还受益于流动性质押代币(LST) 原生获得的质押收益。这有助于保持抵押品相对于借入资产的价值更具活力，并为用户的抵押品引入资本效率元素。

![qUSMTBOzKdMCOcLAzss5hg7MT8oWz3fvj8u6ny3Z.jpeg](https://img.j