ExchangeDEX+
Buy CryptoMarketsSpotFuturesGOLDEarnEvent Center
More
Commodity Zero-Fee Gala

Lending

Lending protocols form the backbone of the decentralized money market, allowing users to lend or borrow digital assets without intermediaries. Using smart contracts, platforms like Aave and Morpho automate interest rates based on supply and demand while requiring over-collateralization for security. The 2026 lending landscape features advanced permissionless vaults and institutional-grade credit lines. This tag covers the evolution of capital efficiency, liquidations, and the integration of diverse collateral types, including LSTs and tokenized RWAs.

15846 Articles
Created: 2026/02/02 18:52
Updated: 2026/02/02 18:52
Bitcoin Crash, Kraken IPO, and $100M Ether Investment Unveiled

Bitcoin Crash, Kraken IPO, and $100M Ether Investment Unveiled

Institutional Confidence Persists Despite Bitcoin’s Dip Below $90,000 As Bitcoin’s price fell below the $90,000 mark this week, triggering concerns about a potential market downturn, institutional investors continued to demonstrate strong confidence by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars into crypto enterprises. This ongoing inflow underscores a broader trend of maturation within the digital asset [...]

Author: Crypto Breaking News

2025/11/24

KuCoin Vs Bitget 2025: Which Crypto Exchange Is Better for You?

KuCoin Vs Bitget 2025: Which Crypto Exchange Is Better for You?

Are you looking for a Bitget Vs. KuCoin review to make an informed decision? If so, you’re exactly where you need to be. Both Bitget and KuCoin are popular cryptocurrency exchanges, known for their innovative trading tools, low fees, and new token listings.  In this article, we’ll discuss how Bitget and KuCoin compare with respect to their features, products, services, security, and fees. We’ll also highlight the differences between their referral programs, user experience, and customer support.  User Score9.3 Promotion11,000 USDT Sign-Up Bonus-10% Trading FeesClaim RewardKuCoin Review User Score9.4 Promotion6,200 USDT Sign-Up Bonus-20% Trading FeesClaim RewardBitget Review KuCoin Vs Bitget: Overview Comparison Metrics KuCoin Bitget Inception year 2017 2018 Global user base 40M+ 120M+ Geographical reach 200+ countries 150+ countries Native cryptocurrency KCS BGB Listed tokens 1,000+ 600+ Trading pairs 1,300+ 775+ Primary features P2P, spot, margin, futures, options, bot, and leveraged tokens trading. Spot, P2P, margin, on-chain, block, futures, pre-market, bot, and copy trading. Staking products Flexible Savings, On-chain Staking, KCS Staking, Shark Fin, Dual Investment, Snowball, KuMining, Crypto Lending, and KCS loyalty. Fixed/Flexible Earn, On-chain Earn/Yield, HodlerYield, Shark Fin, Crypto Loans, and Dual Investment. Payment options 100+ payment methods, including wire transfer, Google/Apple Pay, and third-party channels like Simplex and Banxa 100+ payment methods, including SEPA, Apple/Google Pay, debit/credit card, and third-party providers like Neteller and Cashapp.  Security Multi-factor authentication, withdrawal anti-tampering, proof-of-reserves, data leak prevention, firewalls, DDoS protection, unified egress management, and centralized security logs. Proof-of-reserves, protection fund, two-factor authentication, anti-phishing code, cold storage, withdrawal whitelists, and fund code. Licenses Possesses PCI DSS and ISO/IEC 27001 certifications; Registered with FIU-India and has applied for MiCAR license in Austria; Holds licenses in Seychelles and the Cayman Islands. Regulatory licenses in multiple countries, including Argentina, Bulgaria, the UK, and Australia. Mobile app iOS and Android iOS and Android Referral Code/Link KuCoin Referral Code Bitget Referral Code What is KuCoin? KuCoin is a leading cryptocurrency exchange, recognized as a global unicorn by Hurun and a top crypto app by Forbes. It aims to leverage the transformative power of blockchain technology to financially empower everyone, especially the unbanked. Its mission is to stimulate a free flow of value in the digital arena. Known as the “People’s Exchange” in the crypto industry, KuCoin serves 40+ million crypto users across 200+ countries. Pros & Cons of KuCoin Pros Cons Best crypto exchange for gaining early access to new tokens before they’re officially listed on other exchanges. Multiple trading and staking options. Advanced trading tools. Offers KuCoin Pay, a cost-efficient Web3 payment solution. Low trading fees. Ranks #1 in globalization. Intuitive interface. Provides detailed educational resources via KuCoin Learn. Exclusive benefits for institutional traders like lower fees, API services, OTC trading, a market maker program, and up to 70% broker commission. Limited trading bots. No copy trading feature. KuCard is available for EEA residents only. Doesn’t render services in many countries, including the US. Standout Features of KuCoin GemSpace: It is KuCoin’s dedicated platform for project promotions and new coin listings. It comprises the following: HODLer airdrops: It is a unique program that rewards KCS holders with airdrops based on the historical snapshot of their asset balances.  Spotlight: It is KuCoin’s Launchpad, where you can gain early access to tokens of upcoming projects.  GemPool: You can earn token airdrops at no extra cost by staking your cryptocurrencies for specified periods. USD1 points: KuCoin has partnered with World Liberty Financial (WLF) to launch USD1, a stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar. To earn USD1 points, traders must perform daily tasks. They can redeem these points for rewards in the future. Gemslot: It enables users to unlock prize pools by completing deposit and trade tasks. GemVote: This is the KuCoin community voting process, where you can vote for your favourite projects. The highest-ranked projects have a chance to get listed on the exchange.  KuCoin Earn: KuCoin offers various staking products to help you earn passive income by putting your crypto holdings to work. KuCoin Earn products can be classified into the following categories: Leveraged tokens (LTs): It is a special type of crypto derivative that offers magnified exposure to an underlying cryptocurrency. It doesn’t require margin maintenance or collateral, eliminating liquidation risks. KuCoin Referral CodeUp to $11,000 USDT Welcome Bonus-10% Trading FeesCode Valid: November 2025CopyClaim Reward Now! What is Bitget? Bitget is the best crypto exchange for copy trading. It is also known for its user-friendly interface, TradingView integration, very low fees, intelligent bots, and advanced tools. It aims to encourage people to embrace cryptocurrencies and make smarter investments. Since its launch in 2018, Bitget has emerged as one of the highest-ranked cryptocurrency exchanges by trading volumes. It has a user base of 120+ million across 150+ countries. Pros & Cons of Bitget Pros Cons Top-ranked copy trading platform. Pioneer cryptocurrency exchange to offer quantum swap contracts. Numerous automated bots. High-yield staking and liquidity mining products. Suitable for new crypto traders. Simple and responsive interface. Multiple features, including Lauchhub for accessing promising new tokens. Comprehensive learning resources via Bitget Learn. Exclusive privileges for institutional investors, like low trading fees, 24/7 priority support, API integrations, up to 50% broker commission, and $7 million protection fund. Doesn’t offer standard crypto options. Lower referral commission. Less global coverage and is unavailable to users in all countries, including US traders. Standout Features of Bitget Bitget Copy Trading platform: Bitget is a top crypto exchange for copy trading with 200,000+ elite traders and 800,000+ copiers. All lead traders are vetted by the exchange. Plus, trader statistics are updated in real time to maintain 100% transparency.  Bitget Earn: If you want to earn passive income from idle crypto assets, explore Bitget’s staking services. Simple Earn: You can lock up designated tokens for fixed/flexible durations to earn high yields or hourly and daily interest. On-chain Earn: It helps you stake cryptocurrencies on proof-of-stake blockchains without running your own validator node.  On-chain Elite: It offers curated DeFi strategies and products that generate daily yield. These include BGUSD (backed by RWAs like US treasury bonds), BGBTC(wrapped Bitcoin), and BGSOL (liquidity lock-up). HodlerYield: You can earn baseline APR by holding interest-bearing tokens in your spot and futures trading accounts. Shark Fin: It is a principal-protected product that yields a steady APR of 5% and a variable APR of up to 9%. Dual Investment: It allows you to buy cryptocurrencies at lower prices or sell at higher rates. As it requires you to invest in two crypto assets, you’ll earn interest at settlement time regardless of price direction. Crypto loans: You can borrow cryptocurrencies for flexible periods at competitive rates by pledging your digital assets as collateral. Bitget Referral CodeGet $6,200 USDT Bonus20% Trading Fee DiscountsCode Valid: November 2025CopyClaim Reward Now! KuCoin vs Bitget Comparison: Trading Features Feature KuCoin Bitget P2P platform ✓ ✓ Spot market ✓ ✓ Margin trading ✓ (Up to 100x) ✓ (Up to 125x) Trading bots ✓ ✓ Futures contracts ✓ ✓ Options contracts ✓ х Leveraged tokens ✓ х OTC trading ✓ ✓ Convert ✓ ✓ NFT marketplace ✓ ✓ On-chain trading х ✓ Copy trading х ✓ Pre-market trading х ✓ Paper trading ✓ ✓ KuCoin vs Bitget Comparison: Platform Products and Services KuCoin Spot and derivatives trading: KuCoin supports over 1,290 spot trading pairs and over 560 futures pairs. For derivative enthusiasts, the exchange offers USDC-M, USDT-M, and coin-M futures, and USDT-settled options. It also offers leveraged tokens to help traders amplify their crypto market positions without worrying about margin requirements or liquidation. Leverage trading: Whether you’re trading spot or futures positions, KuCoin enables you to magnify your gains by utilizing leverage. On most spot pairs, you’ll get up to 10x leverage. For select futures pairs, you can even obtain up to 100x leverage.  KuCoin wallet: KuCoin’s decentralized web3 wallet enables you to store, swap, trade, and manage your digital assets across blockchains seamlessly. It helps you navigate dApps, including NFTs, DEXs, and GameFi, with ease. Bitget Spot and futures trading: Bitget features 775+ spot pairs and 786+ futures trading pairs. While the exchange offers USDT, USDC, and coin-settled futures, it also allows you to trade real-world assets through stock futures. If you want to amplify your potential profits, you can also get up to 125x leverage on select futures pairs.  Trading bots: Algorithmic traders looking for AI-powered or customizable automation tools will find Bitget’s trading bots helpful. The platform features pre-built bots that help users maximize gains regardless of market volatility. These include spot/futures grid, martingale, AI, and custodial bots. Moreover, Bitget facilitates automatic trading of expert strategies through bot copy trading. Bitget wallet: It is a non-custodial Web3 wallet, offering multiple services. These include a crypto debit card, staking, token swapping, a dApp browser, and a $300M protection fund. KuCoin vs Bitget Comparison: Trading Fee Structures Product / Service KuCoin fees Bitget fees Spot trading Asset class A: 0.1% for makers and takers. Class B: 0.2% for makers and takers. Class C: 0.3% for makers and takers. 0.1% maker, 0.1% taker. Futures trading 0.02% maker, 0.06% taker 0.02% maker, 0.06% taker. Trading fee rebates 20% discount on spot fees for KCS holders. 20% discount on spot fees for BGB owners. Deposit fees Nil Nil Withdrawal fees Differs based on the cryptocurrency and blockchain you select. Varies depending on the cryptocurrency and network you choose. Crypto debit card Non-EUR transactions: 2% of the total amount. KuCard Annual fee: 10 EUR. Non-USD purchases: 1.7% fiat conversion fee. No top-up, monthly, or annual fees. Zero rate markups. Bitget vs KuCoin: Cryptocurrencies Supported, Liquidity, and Trading Volumes Metrics Bitget KuCoin Supported coins 679+ 1,009+ Spot trading pairs 775+ 1,295+ Derivatives trading pairs 785+ 559+ Liquidity level Deep Deep Trading volumes Daily volume: $20B Consistently ranks among the top 10 largest exchanges. Consistently ranks among the top 10 largest exchanges. KuCoin vs Bitget: Security Comparison KuCoin Security Measures Account safety: To protect user accounts, KuCoin has implemented anti-phishing measures, privacy protection, device integrity audits, and suspicious plugin detection. Wallet security: For safeguarding user wallets, the exchange has formulated anti-tampering measures for withdrawals. It also harnesses machine learning and AI to detect fraudulent transactions. Moreover, its reserves are distributed across hot, warm, and cold wallets, with most assets being stored in multi-signature cold storage. Lastly, it publishes proof-of-reserves monthly. Data protection: The exchange has established various measures to process, store, and safeguard confidential customer data. These include data encryption, backup, recovery, isolation, and leak prevention.  System and app safety: KuCoin has formulated stringent guidelines for developing, testing, and deploying systems and applications. These include real-time security scans, container audits, API whitelisted IP management, etc. Platform and operational security: KuCoin has built a multi-layered defence mechanism, including firewalls, DDoS protection, DNS safety, and real-time traffic monitoring.  Bitget Security Measures Protection Fund: To compensate traders who have incurred losses due to platform issues, Bitget has established a protection fund. It acts as an additional safety layer for user assets against cyber attacks. Currently, the fund has 6,500 BTC, approximately $660 million. Offline storage: Bitget stores most customer assets in cold wallets. For added security, the exchange harnesses multi-signature technology, mandating multiple authorizations for accessing the assets. It has also set up off-site backup solutions for its cold storage.  Advanced security: The exchange maintains and publishes its proof-of-reserves monthly. It holds 100% of user assets in reserves, ensuring that the platform can cover all withdrawals smoothly. Moreover, Bitget has implemented other security features like PIN/fund/anti-phishing code, withdrawal allowlists, and 2FA. KuCoin vs Bitget Comparison: Affiliate & Referral Programs Particulars KuCoin Bitget Referral commission Up to 35% commission. Up to 25% discount on the transaction fees of invitees for 365 days, beginning from the invitees’ sign-up dates. Referral program eligibility Invite 2 friends. Invitees must sign up using your referral code/link, verify KYC, and start trading. Refer new users.  Referees must register using your code/ link, complete identity verification, and perform the qualifying tasks. Rewards Hub Newcomer bonuses (USDT vouchers/coupons) and trading rewards. New user perks, trading bonuses, airdrops, free USDT, futures position vouchers, trial passes, fee rebates, mystery boxes, and daily rewards. Affiliate commission Up to 60% Up to 50% Affiliate program eligibility Any individual/organization with community, media, and resources, such as KOLs, influencers, and content creators. KOLs, content creators, or social media influencers. Exclusive affiliate privileges Personalized dashboard for tracking referral earnings and second-tier commissions. Opportunities to attend industry summits, access to tickets for various sports/entertainment events, 24/7 multilingual support, market updates, and daily insights. Bitget vs KuCoin Comparison: User Experience Both Bitget and KuCoin apps have scored over 4 out of 5 stars, based on reviews from iOS/Android users. Overall, mobile customers are satisfied with the apps’ user-friendly designs and intuitive interfaces. However, user feedback shared on Trustpilot paints a different picture. KuCoin has received a rating of 1.6/5 based on over 1,440 customer reviews. Many KuCoin users have reported issues pertaining to locked funds, withdrawals, and high hidden fees. Some have also accused the exchange of manipulating prices and delisting tokens without giving prior notification.  Conversely, Bitget has a slightly higher rating of 2.4 /5 based on 2,260+ Trustpilot reviews. Customers have predominantly criticized Bitget’s withdrawal process and technical failures. Many users have also experienced sudden asset freezes and account restrictions, despite completing identity verification. The two exchanges have also received negative feedback on Reddit. Users have cited problems related to their P2P trading platforms, dormancy/hidden fees, and unexpected account disablement. Bitget vs KuCoin Comparison: Customer Support Both exchanges provide 24/7 customer support via email and live chat to resolve any issues/questions users may have. Additionally, KuCoin allows you to raise a ticket for your complaints.  Besides, Bitget and KuCoin have also established help centers. They feature self-service guides, FAQs, articles, and platform updates, enabling you to use every feature seamlessly.  However, users of both exchanges are dissatisfied with the customer service. They have complained about the support teams’ delayed responses and inability to redress customer grievances efficiently. Conclusion Bitget and KuCoin are prominent cryptocurrency exchanges, offering a diverse range of trading opportunities, products, and services. Compared to many exchanges, both platforms charge lower fees and provide a fulfilling trading experience. While they have their own merits and demerits, your ultimate choice depends on your goals and risk-return appetite. FAQs which is the better exchange: KuCoin vs Bitget? Bitget and KuCoin offer cutting-edge features, catering to both new and advanced traders. In general, Bitget is better for copy trading, automated tools, cost-efficient transactions, and learning resources. Conversely, KuCoin stands out for its security measures and for providing early access to higher-value crypto gems. Which cryptocurrency exchange is better than KuCoin? If you’re seeking extensive educational resources, beginner-friendly features, innovative staking options, lower fees, and higher liquidity, Bitget is better. For US traders, Coinbase, Gemini, or OKX are the top exchanges. Which exchange platform is more cost-effective: Bitget vs KuCoin? Between KuCoin Vs Bitget, Bitget exchange is the clear winner in terms of spot fees and debit card charges. It levies 0.1% maker and taker fees across all coin pairs for non-VIP users. It also doesn’t collect top-up or annual fees for its debit card. If you trade futures, you can choose either, as both platforms charge the same fees for non-VIP traders.  Which crypto exchange is more beginner-friendly: Bitget Vs. KuCoin? If we compare KuCoin Vs. Bitget, with regard to beginner-friendly features, Bitget has an edge. It is the #1 platform for copy trading and has a cleaner interface. It also provides Futures Kickoff, a simulated environment to help you practice derivative trading strategies.  Moreover, its learning resources are more comprehensive than those of KuCoin.  Which exchange is safer: KuCoin vs Bitget? As per our KuCoin Vs Bitget comparison, KuCoin wins in terms of security. It has designed a robust multi-layered security and compliance framework. This framework includes potent safety measures to protect user accounts, funds, wallets, data, applications, and the platform against cyber threats. The post KuCoin Vs Bitget 2025: Which Crypto Exchange Is Better for You? appeared first on NFT Plazas.

Author: Coinstats

2025/11/24

PBOC sets USD/CNY reference rate at 7.0847 vs. 7.0875 previous

PBOC sets USD/CNY reference rate at 7.0847 vs. 7.0875 previous

The post PBOC sets USD/CNY reference rate at 7.0847 vs. 7.0875 previous appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. On Monday, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) sets the USD/CNY central rate for the trading session ahead at 7.0847 compared to Friday’s fix of 7.0875 and 7.1162 Reuters estimate. PBOC FAQs The primary monetary policy objectives of the People’s Bank of China (PBoC) are to safeguard price stability, including exchange rate stability, and promote economic growth. China’s central bank also aims to implement financial reforms, such as opening and developing the financial market. The PBoC is owned by the state of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), so it is not considered an autonomous institution. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Committee Secretary, nominated by the Chairman of the State Council, has a key influence on the PBoC’s management and direction, not the governor. However, Mr. Pan Gongsheng currently holds both of these posts. Unlike the Western economies, the PBoC uses a broader set of monetary policy instruments to achieve its objectives. The primary tools include a seven-day Reverse Repo Rate (RRR), Medium-term Lending Facility (MLF), foreign exchange interventions and Reserve Requirement Ratio (RRR). However, The Loan Prime Rate (LPR) is China’s benchmark interest rate. Changes to the LPR directly influence the rates that need to be paid in the market for loans and mortgages and the interest paid on savings. By changing the LPR, China’s central bank can also influence the exchange rates of the Chinese Renminbi. Yes, China has 19 private banks – a small fraction of the financial system. The largest private banks are digital lenders WeBank and MYbank, which are backed by tech giants Tencent and Ant Group, per The Straits Times. In 2014, China allowed domestic lenders fully capitalized by private funds to operate in the state-dominated financial sector. Source: https://www.fxstreet.com/news/pboc-sets-usd-cny-reference-rate-at-70847-vs-70875-previous-202511240115

Author: BitcoinEthereumNews

2025/11/24

Governance Innovation of On-Chain Credit Infrastructure: Industry Practices from DAO to Curator Model

Governance Innovation of On-Chain Credit Infrastructure: Industry Practices from DAO to Curator Model

Written by: 0xResearcher Introduction: When DeFi Meets a "Midlife Crisis" Since the second half of 2024, a noteworthy phenomenon has emerged in the DeFi lending sector: several leading protocols have simultaneously begun adjusting their governance structures, shifting from pure DAO governance to more flexible hybrid models. Behind this change lies a collective exploration by the entire industry in the face of institutionalization, regulatory pressure, and efficiency bottlenecks. Morpho's MetaMorpho curator system launched in 2024, Aave's attempt at an institution-only marketplace, and Compound's discussions surrounding Treasury all point in the same direction: the traditional "one person, one vote" governance model is revealing its limitations in the face of rapidly changing market demands. This article attempts to answer a core question by comparing and analyzing the strategic adjustments of several major protocols in 2024-2025: How should DeFi lending protocols find a balance between decentralized ideals and commercial efficiency? We will use Gearbox Protocol's Permissionless model launched in March 2025 as a primary case study and conduct a horizontal comparison with the practices of protocols such as Morpho, Aave, and Compound to evaluate the differences in performance of different governance models in actual operation. DAO-managed "chronic disease" Over the past year, the on-chain lending market has experienced a profound identity crisis. The narrative from 2020 to 2022 was "the democratization of permissionless finance," but by 2024, when traditional financial giants like Coinbase and BlackRock truly began deploying on-chain lending, the entire industry suddenly found itself no longer facing the challenge of "how to attract retail investors," but rather "how to serve institutional clients while adhering to the original principles of decentralization." The most direct manifestation of this predicament is the collapse of governance efficiency. Take Compound as an example: a proposal in 2024 regarding adding new collateral types took over eight weeks from discussion to final approval, during which time the market window had already closed. While Aave improved this somewhat through a fast-track approval process (Snapshot voting), the fundamental problem remained unresolved: when a protocol needs to serve 50 user groups with different risk appetites, the DAO's "all-encompassing" logic inevitably leads to "slowness." Another underestimated challenge is regulatory compatibility. The EU's MiCA regulations and the US SEC's enforcement actions have made the entire industry realize that "pure decentralization" is neither a shield for regulatory exemptions nor conducive to integration with traditional financial institutions. Institutional funds require clearly defined responsible parties, clear risk control processes, and auditable decision-making records—precisely the weaknesses of traditional DAO governance. Against this backdrop, a wave of "governance model reconstruction" emerged in 2024. Morpho pioneered MetaMorpho, allowing professional teams to create vaults and manage risk parameters autonomously; Aave launched the Aave Arc program, providing institutional clients with a dedicated KYC marketplace; Euler launched EVC (Ethereum Vault Connector) to achieve more modular risk isolation. The common thread among these attempts is: while maintaining decentralization at the protocol layer, delegating operational decision-making power for specific markets to professional teams. A "Species Atlas" of Four Governance Models Compound: A staunch conservative, Compound still adheres to complete on-chain governance, requiring a full process of proposals, voting, and time locks for any parameter adjustments. The advantages of this model are high transparency and strong community participation, but the cost is a long decision-making cycle (typically 2-4 weeks) and difficulty in quickly responding to market changes. In 2024, the total number of Compound markets only increased from 32 to 41, significantly lagging behind its competitors. However, to be fair, Compound's positioning is "stability first," and its three-year record of zero bad debts proves the risk control advantages of this model. In an industry that generally pursues speed, Compound is like an old craftsman who insists on handcrafted brewing—slow, but with reliable quality. Morpho: A Radical Decentralizer. Morpho's MetaMorpho system is perhaps the most radical attempt at decentralization to date. The protocol itself is only responsible for the underlying lending logic and liquidation mechanism; the creation of specific markets, asset selection, and risk parameters are entirely determined by the curators. This has led to an astonishing rate of expansion: in 2024, Morpho added over 200 markets, and TVL grew from $800 million to $2.8 billion (a 250% increase). However, problems are also evident. As of May 2025, Morpho's top 10 curators controlled over 65% of the TVL, and the risk of centralization cannot be ignored. More worryingly, some curators, in pursuit of higher returns, have begun accepting collateral with poor liquidity, and potential risks are accumulating. Morpho is like handing the steering wheel to the passenger, only responsible for applying the brakes—provided the braking system is sensitive enough. Aave: A Pedestrian in the Dilemma. Aave has adopted a relatively moderate approach: the main pool remains strictly managed by the DAO, but a customized marketplace is offered to institutional clients through Aave Arc. The advantage of this "dual-track" system is that it retains the decentralized foundation while flexibly serving institutional needs. However, operational complexity has increased significantly; Aave's development costs increased by 40% year-on-year in 2024, and the Arc market growth was far below expectations (TVL accounted for only 8% of the total). A key reason is that institutional clients found that while Arc's Know Your Customer (KYC) requirements met compliance needs, they did not offer a significant advantage in interest rates, resulting in insufficient appeal. Aave is like a rider trying to ride two horses at once—theoretically feasible, but extremely exhausting in practice. Compound V3: A Tinkerer's Attempt. Compound V3 attempts to improve upon the traditional DAO framework by introducing a "fast-track proposal" mechanism: for low-risk parameter adjustments (such as interest rate fine-tuning), a simplified process can be implemented, reducing approval time from 4 weeks to 1 week. This alleviates efficiency issues to some extent, but it essentially remains within the DAO framework, and 2024 practice demonstrated that its market expansion speed is still limited. A comparison reveals a growing consensus in the industry: pure DAO governance is ill-suited to the current market pace, but completely abandoning decentralization will create new problems. The key is finding appropriate "decentralization boundaries"—which decisions must remain at the DAO level (such as core protocol parameters and economic models), and which can be delegated to specialized teams (such as risk management in specific markets). Gearbox's "Fast and Furious" Gearbox's Permissionless model, launched in March 2025, can be seen as a variation of the Morpho Curator model, but with added constraints. The core logic is: the protocol layer provides standardized lending and leverage infrastructure, curators are responsible for creating specific markets and managing risk parameters, but curators must bear the first loss themselves (through a staking mechanism), and their operations are subject to on-chain transparency. Data shows that this model achieved significant initial success. From March to August 2025, Gearbox's TVL grew from $105 million to $329 million, a growth rate of 213%. Particularly noteworthy is the Lido dedicated pool, the first large-scale application of the Permissionless model, whose TVL grew from $72 million to $296 million. This growth rate is indeed impressive in the current market environment—for comparison, Aave's overall TVL growth rate during the same period was 45%, Compound's was 31%, and Morpho's was 89%. What's even more interesting is the comparison of expansion speed. Gearbox deployed 42 new markets across 5 chains in 3 months, compared to only 41 markets in the entire year of 2024. This acceleration is driven by the improved decision-making efficiency brought about by the curator model: no longer needing to go through the DAO proposal process for each market, curators can act quickly based on market opportunities. In contrast, Compound's average launch cycle for each new market in 2024 was 3.2 weeks, Aave's was 2.1 weeks, while Gearbox shortened this cycle to an average of 5 days through the Permissionless model. However, rapid expansion has also raised questions. Gearbox currently has "activated" deployment capabilities on 28 EVM chains, but actually only operates on 9 chains. While this "wide net" strategy reduces operating costs, it also means that a large amount of liquidity is dispersed. Taking the Plasma pool as an example, although the TVL reaches $80 million, it is distributed across 4 different chains, and the actual liquidity depth on a single chain is not high. This is similar to the problem faced by Morpho: excessive market fragmentation can weaken capital efficiency. Another noteworthy metric is the quality of the curators. Gearbox currently collaborates with five curators, including Invariant Group, Re7, and Maven11, managing a combined asset size of over $1.5 billion, with four of them ranking among the top 15 DeFi curators. This certainly reflects a certain level of institutionalization, but a comparison with Morpho reveals a gap: Morpho's curator ecosystem includes over 30 professional institutions such as Gauntlet, Steakhouse Financial, and Block Analitica, managing a total asset size exceeding $5 billion. The breadth and depth of the curator ecosystem directly determine the model's resilience. Risk testing is another crucial dimension. Gearbox officially emphasizes that it achieved zero bad debts during the extreme market volatility of October 10, 2024, which is indeed a positive sign. However, it should be noted that the extreme nature of this test was relatively limited (ETH experienced a 12% single-day drop). A true stress test should refer to the Terra crash in May 2022 or the March 12, 2020 black swan event. For comparison, Aave experienced approximately $5.3 million in bad debt during the March 12, 2020 event, but this was covered by insurance and community funds; Compound experienced approximately $8.6 million in liquidation delays, but ultimately did not result in actual losses. Morpho, due to its later launch, has not yet undergone a true systemic risk test, which is one reason why the market remains cautious about its rapid expansion. The strategic transformation of "fighting with our backs to the wall" In August 2025, Gearbox DAO passed proposal GIP-264, deciding to completely abandon the traditional DAO governance pool and fully transition to a permissionless model. This decision sparked intense debate within the community, as it signified a complete departure from the protocol's earlier concept of "community-driven decision-making for specific markets." From a business perspective, this choice is understandable: the permissionless pool already accounted for over 70% of the total TVL, and its growth rate far exceeded that of the DAO pool; maintaining two systems was clearly not cost-effective. The DAO pool's TVL only grew from 82 million to 98 million in 2024 (a 19% increase), while the permissionless pool grew by 180% during the same period. More importantly, the operating costs of the DAO pool (including the time and manpower costs of the governance process) were actually higher. This is akin to a company finding its traditional business unit not only growing slowly but also continuously consuming resources, ultimately deciding to make a drastic decision. However, the objections raised by the opponents are not without merit. First, is a 70% TVL (TVL) percentage sufficient to represent "users voting with their feet"? It's worth considering that the Permissionless pool enjoys preferential resources from the protocol in marketing and curator relationships. Second, will completely abandoning the DAO pool cause the protocol to lose its "decentralized" narrative foundation? In the current regulatory environment, this might actually be a disadvantage. Uniswap has attracted SEC attention due to its overly centralized front-end control, while Compound's pure DAO governance has become a point of defense. From an industry comparison perspective, Gearbox's choice is quite radical. Aave opted for a dual-track approach, Compound still insists on DAO dominance, and even Morpho retains DAO governance at the protocol layer (although the market layer is completely delegated to curators). Gearbox is the first mainstream protocol to completely "bet" on the curator model. This could be a turning point for the industry, or it could be a costly experiment. The design of the migration process is noteworthy. To ensure a smooth transition, Gearbox deployed two new institutional curators (Maven11 and KPK) to take over funding from the original DAO pool. However, a subtle issue arises: are users being "guided" to migrate or migrating "voluntarily"? If support and optimization of the DAO pool gradually cease, users are essentially passively accepting the new model. This "soft coercion" could sow the seeds of future problems—if issues arise with the new model, the community might feel deprived of their right to choose. The Curator Economy: A Two-Sided Mirror The rise of the curator model is essentially an inevitable result of the "specialization" in the DeFi field. However, we need to be soberly aware that this model is far from perfect. The bright side is obvious: professional teams can provide more refined risk management, faster market response, and more user-friendly interfaces for institutional connections. Morpho's data shows that markets managed by its curators have an average capital utilization rate 23% higher than those governed by DAOs. Gearbox claims that its curators can complete the deployment of new markets within 5 days, while the traditional process takes 3-4 weeks. These efficiency improvements are real, just as a professional chef can indeed make more refined dishes than a home kitchen. However, the darker side cannot be ignored. First, there's the risk of centralization. In both Morpho and Gearbox, the top 5 curators control over 50% of the total value (TVL). If these curators make a systemic misjudgment (like the collapses of 3AC and Celsius in 2022), the entire protocol will be severely impacted. A more insidious risk is potential collusion among curators—although theoretically each market is independent, if several major curators use similar risk control models, systemic risk can be amplified. Second, there's the ambiguity of liability. When bad debts occur, should the curators or the protocol bear the burden? Morpho's solution involves curators staking to cover the initial loss, but the staking ratio is typically only 5-10% of the market size, meaning large bad debts will still be passed on to the protocol. Gearbox's mechanism is similar and hasn't undergone true stress testing. In contrast, while Aave is slower, its liability boundaries are clear: the protocol bears all risks, covered by an insurance fund. Third is information asymmetry. Although all operations are on-chain, it's difficult for ordinary users to assess the curator's risk exposure in real time. Morpho has seen cases where curators quietly increased the proportion of risky assets, only to be discovered after someone exposed it on a forum. Gearbox currently relies on third-party dashboards like Dune for transparency, but this is far inferior to the protocol's native risk monitoring system. Fourth is the lack of an exit mechanism. Theoretically, if users are dissatisfied with the curator's decisions, they can withdraw their funds and move them to another market. However, in practice, withdrawals often require a waiting period (due to liquidity management needs), and switching markets incurs gas fees and potential slippage losses. This "stickiness" actually makes curators lack sufficient external constraints, making them resemble a monopoly without competitive pressure. The "bloated" trap of multi-chain expansion Both Gearbox and Morpho heavily promote their multi-chain deployment capabilities, but this strategy warrants closer examination. Gearbox claims to be "activated" on 28 EVM chains, but actually operates on 9. Morpho operates on 12 chains. In contrast, Aave focuses on only 6 mainstream chains, and Compound only has the Ethereum mainnet and a few L2 chains. Which strategy is superior? The logic behind supporting multiple chains is to capture more incremental markets, especially early opportunities in emerging L2 chains. Gearbox's pools on Plasma and Etherlink have indeed capitalized on the early liquidity gaps of these chains, achieving a TVL of $80 million and $17 million respectively. This is successful from the perspective of a single chain, but problems emerge when viewed at the protocol level as a whole. First, liquidity fragmentation severely weakens capital efficiency. When the same asset type is distributed across 10 chains, the depth of a single chain is insufficient to support large-scale lending, necessitating higher interest rates to compensate for liquidity risk. Aave's data shows that its average utilization rate for USDC on the Ethereum mainnet is 75%, while on some smaller L2 chains, the utilization rate of pools with the same parameters is only 40%. Second, cross-chain risks are systematically underestimated. The collapse of Multichain in 2024 resulted in losses exceeding $120 million for multiple protocols, most of which were multi-chain protocols. Each additional chain adds reliance on cross-chain bridges, which remain the most vulnerable link in the entire crypto space. Although Gearbox claims to use "official bridges," official bridges also cannot guarantee absolute security—the Ronin Bridge is a stark example. Third, there is a hidden increase in operating costs. Although Gearbox says "activation" is not the same as "operation," each chain requires oracles, liquidation bots, and monitoring systems. More importantly, there is technical debt: the compatibility of different EVMs is not 100%, and when contracts need to be upgraded, the coordination cost of 28 chains is much higher than that of 6 chains. In contrast, Aave's "selective mainchain" strategy, while seemingly conservative, offers superior capital efficiency and security. Its Ethereum mainnet single-chain TVL exceeds $12 billion, far surpassing the single-chain scale of any multi-chain protocol, implying greater liquidity depth and lower lending costs. Compound's strategy is even more extreme: focusing solely on Ethereum, but maximizing security and stability, resulting in three years of zero bad debts and making it the preferred choice for institutional investors. Multi-chain expansion is essentially an "efficiency illusion": superficially, the market quantity and chain coverage appear extensive, but the true moat lies not in breadth, but in depth. The network effect of DeFi is the network effect of liquidity; decentralization weakens this effect. Like a chain restaurant, opening 100 mediocre branches is less competitive than concentrating resources on 10 boutique stores. Institutionalized "Faustian trade" The overarching context of this governance model revolution is the "institutionalization" wave in DeFi. However, we need to question: is institutionalization truly the future of DeFi? Supporters have a clear logic: institutional funds, with their large size, high stability, and professional risk control, are essential for DeFi to scale up. Data supports this: in 2024, institutional funds accounted for 29% of DeFi's total TVL, up from 12%, contributing the vast majority of the incremental growth. Gearbox's ability to attract institutional curators like Maven11 and KPK, and Morpho's collaboration with top risk control companies like Gauntlet, have indeed enhanced the professionalism of the protocols. But opponents' concerns are equally valid: wasn't the original intention of DeFi to "remove intermediaries"? When we introduce institutional curators, KYC access, and professional risk control teams, how much difference remains between DeFi and traditional finance? A more realistic risk is that institutionalization might turn DeFi into a "licensed club," systematically excluding small teams and individual users. A worrying trend is the "oligopolization" of the curator ecosystem. Of Morpho's top 15 curators, 9 also provide risk consulting for protocols like Aave and Compound. What does this mean? It means that risk decisions for the entire DeFi lending market are effectively controlled by fewer than 20 institutions. Once these institutions adopt similar models and assumptions (which they likely already are), systemic risk will be greatly amplified. Wasn't the lesson of the 2008 financial crisis that "everyone uses the same risk control model"? Another overlooked issue is the disappearance of regulatory arbitrage. A major advantage of early DeFi was the flexibility afforded by regulatory gray areas, but as protocols actively embrace institutionalization, introduce KYC, and establish clearly defined responsible parties, they are essentially relinquishing this advantage. The EU's MiCA and the potential US stablecoin legislation both explicitly require licensed institutions to comply with traditional financial rules such as capital adequacy ratios and liquidity coverage ratios. If DeFi protocols ultimately also have to comply with these rules, will their cost structure become similar to traditional finance, thus losing their competitive advantage? The more fundamental philosophical question is: what kind of financial system do we really want? If the answer is "more efficient traditional finance," then institutionalization is fine. But if the answer is "a truly decentralized, censorship-resistant, permissionless financial system," then the current direction is questionable. Uniswap's success precisely demonstrates that minimalist, truly decentralized protocols can also achieve huge market share (TVL exceeding $4 billion, and completely without curators or governance). This is like asking: do we want a faster horse-drawn carriage or a car? If DeFi is merely moving traditional finance onto the blockchain, what's the point? There are no perfect answers, only the art of weighing options. By comparing and analyzing Gearbox, Morpho, Aave, and Compound, we can draw several conclusions. First, traditional DAO governance does indeed have efficiency bottlenecks, but its "slowness" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Compound's three-year record of zero bad debts proves that caution and transparency have irreplaceable value in risk management. Speed isn't always good, especially when dealing with other people's funds. Second, the curator model improves efficiency, but at the cost of centralized risk and ambiguous responsibility. The rapid expansion of Morpho and Gearbox is impressive, but it hasn't been tested over a full cycle. A key test will be: how will the curator and the protocol share the losses when large-scale bad debts first occur, and will the community accept it? Third, multi-chain expansion seems appealing, but it may actually be an efficiency trap. Capital efficiency and liquidity depth are more important than market size; Aave's curated strategy may be superior in the long run. Fourth, institutionalization is a double-edged sword. It brings professionalism and scale, but it may also cause DeFi to lose its fundamental advantages. The industry needs to find a balance between embracing institutional funds and maintaining decentralization, rather than pursuing the former one-sidedly. Finally, Gearbox's full transition to a permissionless model is a bold experiment, and its success or failure will profoundly impact the future direction of the entire DeFi lending sector. If successful, we may see more protocols follow suit; if it fails, it will serve as a cautionary tale of "over-centralization." Regardless, this experiment deserves close attention from the entire industry. The future of DeFi will not be the victory of any one model, but rather the coexistence of multiple models in different scenarios. Some users need Compound's extreme security, some need Morpho's flexibility and efficiency, and some need Aave's robust balance. The protocol's task is not to find the "perfect model," but to clearly tell users: what trade-offs are you making, what risks are you taking, and what returns are you getting? Transparency and honesty are ultimately more important than any governance model.

Author: PANews

2025/11/24

3 Best Cryptos to Buy Now During the Market Dip

3 Best Cryptos to Buy Now During the Market Dip

The post 3 Best Cryptos to Buy Now During the Market Dip appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. With the market pulling back and prices dipping across the board, smart investors are taking the opportunity to load up on the best cryptos to buy before the next rebound. Among the top coins, Shiba Inu (SHIB) is attracting dip-buyers thanks to growing ecosystem activity, Solana (SOL) is also maintaining investor confidence because of its robust high-performance network even amidst its volatility fluctuations for now.  But among all cryptos that are being hotly pursued at this point is none other than Mutuum Finance (MUTM), which is rapidly growing to become one of the most front-running DeFi cryptos at just $0.035 and already deep into Phase 6 of its presale stage. MUTM is already beyond 95% of Phase 6 being sold out because of its explosive market interest even at such an early stage and because analysts are increasingly recommending it as the next crypto to explode very soon. Shiba Inu Shows Early Signs of Strength as Buyers Attempt Breakout At the moment, Shiba Inu (SHIB) is range-bound within a strong accumulation range, where buyers are making efforts to overcome weak momentum. One of the most crucial indicators to focus on is when it cleanly breaches above the median Band’s middle region of Bollinger Bands, marking the very first sign of strength to catalyze its mild reversal. When SHIB Moss handles this crucial move to its favor, its enormous task for now is to breach its 200 EMA to validate its significant reversal. Until this is achieved, traders take their time to carefully observe SHIB’s markets. This is also causing investors to probe Mutuum Finance, making it a top candidate for the best cryptos to buy this cycle. Solana Nears its Most Crucial Support Point for This Month Solana (SOL) is now poised to enter a crucial phase because market indicators…

Author: BitcoinEthereumNews

2025/11/24

DeFi Lending Volume Soars to $41B in Q3, Fueled by Airdrop Farming Frenzy

DeFi Lending Volume Soars to $41B in Q3, Fueled by Airdrop Farming Frenzy

BitcoinWorld DeFi Lending Volume Soars to $41B in Q3, Fueled by Airdrop Farming Frenzy Have you ever wondered how DeFi lending volume exploded in the third quarter? According to a report from Galaxy Digital, it skyrocketed to $40.99 billion, marking a massive $14.52 billion increase from the previous quarter. This surge highlights the growing influence of decentralized finance in the crypto world, largely driven by airdrop farming activities that […] This post DeFi Lending Volume Soars to $41B in Q3, Fueled by Airdrop Farming Frenzy first appeared on BitcoinWorld.

Author: bitcoinworld

2025/11/24

Hedera Breakout Alert: New WBTC Integration Fuels HBAR Rally Toward $0.60

Hedera Breakout Alert: New WBTC Integration Fuels HBAR Rally Toward $0.60

Hedera (HBAR) is currently trading at $0.1442, an 11.35% increase. The 24-hour trading volume climbed to $276.91 million, reflecting a 19.47% uptick. Despite this strong daily momentum, the token remains 2.13% lower on the weekly timeframe, signaling a market still seeking sustained direction. Descending Channel Reaches Critical Point Crypto analyst Profit Demon noted that HBAR […]

Author: Tronweekly

2025/11/24

Why Most Crypto Treasury Firms Trade at a Discount

Why Most Crypto Treasury Firms Trade at a Discount

The post Why Most Crypto Treasury Firms Trade at a Discount appeared on BitcoinEthereumNews.com. Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan highlights common mispricing in Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATs). He urges investors to consider valuation beyond simple crypto holdings as these firms navigate complex financial dynamics. DATs now manage over $130 billion in digital assets, serving as vital links between traditional capital markets and direct cryptocurrency exposure. Their unique position brings new valuation challenges that set them apart from other investment vehicles. Sponsored Bitwise Just Revealed 3 Ways to Value DATs: All You Need to Know Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan warns that most DATs are mispriced. While many trade at a discount to their assets, a few can trade at a premium by boosting crypto-per-share. Hougan’s framework offers investors a clear way to separate the winners from the laggards. 1/ I see a lot of bad analysis of DATs, or digital asset treasury companies. Specifically, I see a lot of bad takes on whether they should trade at, above, or below the value of the assets they hold (their so-called “mNAV”). Here’s how I approach it. — Matt Hougan (@Matt_Hougan) November 23, 2025 Why Most DATs Trade at a Discount Hougan highlights three main reasons DATs usually underperform: Illiquidity: Investors demand a 5–10% discount if assets aren’t immediately accessible. Expenses: Operational costs and executive compensation directly reduce value. Sponsored For example, $100 of Bitcoin minus $10 of expenses per share equals a 10% discount. Risk: Mistakes, market shifts, or execution errors further lower valuations. “…most of the reasons they should trade at a discount are certain, and most of the reasons they might trade at a premium are uncertain,” Hougan says. This means the majority of DATs will underperform relative to their net asset value (mNAV). Sponsored How DATs Can Trade at a Premium Some DATs outperform by increasing crypto-per-share, with Hougan identifying four…

Author: BitcoinEthereumNews

2025/11/24

DeFi Lending Skyrockets in Q3, Crushing CeFi: Galaxy Reports

DeFi Lending Skyrockets in Q3, Crushing CeFi: Galaxy Reports

Amidst incentives, stronger collateral, and rising prices, DeFi lending surged in Q3, capturing a record 55.7% market share during the quarter.

Author: CryptoPotato

2025/11/24

Most Crypto Treasury Firms Trade at a Discount — Here’s Why

Most Crypto Treasury Firms Trade at a Discount — Here’s Why

Bitwise Chief Investment Officer Matt Hougan highlights common mispricing in Digital Asset Treasury Companies (DATs). He urges investors to consider valuation beyond simple crypto holdings as these firms navigate complex financial dynamics. DATs now manage over $130 billion in digital assets, serving as vital links between traditional capital markets and direct cryptocurrency exposure. Their unique position brings new valuation challenges that set them apart from other investment vehicles. Bitwise Just Revealed 3 Ways to Value DATs: All You Need to Know Bitwise CIO Matt Hougan warns that most DATs are mispriced. While many trade at a discount to their assets, a few can trade at a premium by boosting crypto-per-share. Hougan’s framework offers investors a clear way to separate the winners from the laggards. Why Most DATs Trade at a Discount Hougan highlights three main reasons DATs usually underperform: Illiquidity: Investors demand a 5–10% discount if assets aren’t immediately accessible. Expenses: Operational costs and executive compensation directly reduce value. For example, $100 of Bitcoin minus $10 of expenses per share equals a 10% discount. Risk: Mistakes, market shifts, or execution errors further lower valuations. “…most of the reasons they should trade at a discount are certain, and most of the reasons they might trade at a premium are uncertain,” Hougan says. This means the majority of DATs will underperform relative to their net asset value (mNAV). How DATs Can Trade at a Premium Some DATs outperform by increasing crypto-per-share, with Hougan identifying four key strategies: Issuing Debt: Borrowing USD to buy crypto can grow per-share holdings if prices rise. Lending Crypto: Earning interest compounds the crypto held by the company. Using Derivatives: Writing options or similar strategies generates additional assets, though it may limit upside. Acquiring Crypto at a Discount: Buying undervalued assets, repurchasing shares, or acquiring cash-flow businesses can increase crypto-per-share efficiently. The Bitwise executive articulates that scale matters, noting that larger DATs can access debt more easily, lend more crypto, and take advantage of M&A opportunities. Size is a structural advantage. Market Differentiation Is Coming DATs have historically moved together, but Hougan predicts increased divergence. Premium DATs: Executing well, growing crypto-per-share, leveraging scale. Discount DATs: Struggling with expenses, risk, or small scale. Investors can use Hougan’s approach, calculating expenses, risk, and growth potential, to determine fair value. Investors should also watch: Which DATs consistently increase crypto-per-share. How scale gives certain DATs a long-term edge. Market moves that create opportunities to buy undervalued DATs. With the market set for more differentiation, understanding Hougan’s framework could separate winners from losers amid a growing digital asset treasury space.

Author: Coinstats

2025/11/24

Recommended by active authors

BitcoinEthereumNews
BitcoinEthereumNews
5082Articles
Cryptopolitan
Cryptopolitan
1125Articles
Coinstats
Coinstats
1009Articles
PANews
PANews
982Articles

Related Tags

#Oracle#Brifge#Yield-Farming#Basis-Trading#Prediction-Market#Launchpad#Liquid-Staking#DePIN#RWA

Latest Articles

‘MAGA loudmouths’ make big admission about Trump endorsements: report

‘MAGA loudmouths’ make big admission about Trump endorsements: report

2026/02/17 04:39
Two-way trade near strong NEER – OCBC

Two-way trade near strong NEER – OCBC

2026/02/17 04:30
XRP Eyes Recovery While Sellers Stay Active

XRP Eyes Recovery While Sellers Stay Active

2026/02/17 04:05
Zerolend has announced plans to shutdown its operations

Zerolend has announced plans to shutdown its operations

2026/02/17 03:55
Vitalik Buterin: 'Suits and Ties Should Be Expunged From Our Culture'

Vitalik Buterin: 'Suits and Ties Should Be Expunged From Our Culture'

2026/02/17 03:02