That design flaw never came to my mind until now. That's why real live experience matters.
To frame this differently: during bull, optimistic/reckless curators create risk and are cutting into the business of the conservative risk provider. Then on the way down the contango can have consequences which even the conservative risk curators did not think of.
The core issue with the curation vault model lies in the illusion of isolation. Curators are meant to manage distinct strategies and segregate risk, yet in practice, they all end up supplying liquidity to the same underlying lending markets. What is designed to promote diversification instead concentrates exposure, turning one curator’s stress into everyone’s problem.
Despite being framed as modular and independent, the model inherently links all vaults through shared borrower pools. Liquidity from multiple curators merges into a single system, so the decisions or withdrawals of one can ripple instantly across all others as we see with recent issues with xUSD and similar assets. Even a cautious curator cannot escape the fallout from a more aggressive participant operating within the same pool.
When confidence falters or withdrawals accelerate, these shared markets seize up. Utilization shoots to 100%, redemptions grind to a halt, and borrowing rates spike to unsustainable levels. A localized liquidity crunch quickly transforms into a protocol-wide freeze, a DeFi version of a bank run essentially.
This creates a design paradox: a system built for isolation that, in reality, amplifies interdependence. Every vault inherits the risk behavior of the weakest curator, making the entire structure vulnerable when liquidity is most needed.
This model is even amplified by the economic design of these protocols: lower fees or take more risk to create business, otherwise become commoditized.
In contrast, Aave’s architecture achieves the risk segregation that curator models only promise. Each market operates in true isolation, with conservative collateral standards, controlled listings, and transparent onchain governance. Market shocks remain contained, liquidity remains accessible, and the protocol’s record of zero bad debt across billions in total value supplied underscores its resilience.
For vault creators and users, this difference is decisive. Shared-liquidity designs magnify contagion, while isolated-market frameworks contain it. Aave’s conservative design ensures predictable yields, reliable redemptions, and the stability that sustains confidence through volatility.
Just use Aave.
1.446
4
Il contenuto di questa pagina è fornito da terze parti. Salvo diversa indicazione, OKX non è l'autore degli articoli citati e non rivendica alcun copyright sui materiali. Il contenuto è fornito solo a scopo informativo e non rappresenta le opinioni di OKX. Non intende essere un'approvazione di alcun tipo e non deve essere considerato un consiglio di investimento o una sollecitazione all'acquisto o alla vendita di asset digitali. Nella misura in cui l'IA generativa viene utilizzata per fornire riepiloghi o altre informazioni, tale contenuto generato dall'IA potrebbe essere impreciso o incoerente. Leggi l'articolo collegato per ulteriori dettagli e informazioni. OKX non è responsabile per i contenuti ospitati su siti di terze parti. Gli holding di asset digitali, tra cui stablecoin e NFT, comportano un elevato grado di rischio e possono fluttuare notevolmente. Dovresti valutare attentamente se effettuare il trading o detenere asset digitali è adatto a te alla luce della tua situazione finanziaria.


