some pointers to reason about defi risk in vaults and money markets
1) a vault is solvent and liquid only if:
1. collateral quality â„ drawdown you can prove you can absorb,
2. dex depth â„ redemptions you might face, at bounded slippage,
3. redemption rails are enforceable (code) not promised (pdf).
when any corner weakens, the peg or nav bleeds first, then breaks (see xusd).
2)how to curate the curators (follow the flows, not the decks)
before trusting a âcuratedâ meta-vault, map actual positions:
1. % to onchain vaults or money markets vs. offchain vaults or managers/custodians,
2. leverage layers (amm lp â rehypothecated â delta-hedged?),
3. tenor mismatch (instant user liquidity vs. term assets).
xusd showed how an offchain manager loss can nuke a âyield-backedâ stable and force withdrawal halts.
3)collateral taxonomy test (fast screen)
label every unit of collateral as:
1. onchain-native: e.g., wsteth, cbBTC, rsETH (transparent, liquid)
2. wrapped-offchain: bank/custody/repo exposure (legal/ops risk)
3. derivative-of-derivative: pts/yt, restaked receipts, structured credit (stacked model risk)
rule: the more layers, the higher the operational and redemption beta. xusd + other depegs remind that wrappers/derivatives amplify failure paths.
4) dex depth â debt ceiling (quantify, donât vibe)
for each collateral, compute exitable size at â€1% slippage across all pools and venues â that caps safe âinstant redemption.â
and with that value, reason about whether your deposits are liquid or iliquid, same goes for withdrawal queues
5) redemption reality check (three hard questions)
is âinstantâ backed by onchain AMM/PSM capacity or by âbest effortsâ?
does code force asset sales or queueing at known rules?
can withdrawals be gated by an offchain committee?
if any answer is squishy, treat âinstantâ as marketing, not a guarantee. in xusd, halts + queues compounded the loss path.
6) onchain > offchain (verification beats promises)
a fully onchain book with public accounting is strictly safer than a heavily-audited offchain book with discretionary gates. xusdâs $93m loss at an external fund and subsequent depeg are the canonical 2025 case study in ce-defi fragility.
7) why this matters now
in the last month alone, xusd and peers showed how a single external loss + weak redemption rails can spiral into deep bad debt and multi-stable contagion. treat âinstant redemptionsâ and âlow-risk wrappersâ as claims to be falsified every week, onchain, with numbers.
8) tl;dr for allocators
if you canât prove (a) depth-based debt ceilings, (b) queued-withdraw logic under forks, and (c) latency-aware liquidation design â youâre not underwriting yield, youâre underwriting storytelling. and 2025 has been brutal to stories.
9) tl;dr for allocators
if you canât prove (a) depth-based debt ceilings, (b) queued-withdraw logic under forks, and (c) latency-aware liquidation design â youâre not underwriting yield, youâre underwriting storytelling. and 2025 has been brutal to stories.
10) doesn't matter you're using @aave, @MorphoLabs, @0xfluid , @eulerfinance , @SuperlendHQ , these things if you keep focusing you, may save you from similar incidents in the future
if you want that yield, you have to educate yourself and you can't trust curators alone
2,36Â tn
0
InnehÄllet pÄ den hÀr sidan tillhandahÄlls av tredje part. Om inte annat anges Àr OKX inte författare till den eller de artiklar som citeras och hÀmtar inte nÄgon upphovsrÀtt till materialet. InnehÄllet tillhandahÄlls endast i informationssyfte och representerar inte OKX:s Äsikter. Det Àr inte avsett att vara ett godkÀnnande av nÄgot slag och bör inte betraktas som investeringsrÄdgivning eller en uppmaning att köpa eller sÀlja digitala tillgÄngar. I den mÄn generativ AI anvÀnds för att tillhandahÄlla sammanfattningar eller annan information kan sÄdant AI-genererat innehÄll vara felaktigt eller inkonsekvent. LÀs den lÀnkade artikeln för mer detaljer och information. OKX ansvarar inte för innehÄll som finns pÄ tredje parts webbplatser. Innehav av digitala tillgÄngar, inklusive stabila kryptovalutor och NFT:er, innebÀr en hög grad av risk och kan fluktuera kraftigt. Du bör noga övervÀga om handel med eller innehav av digitala tillgÄngar Àr lÀmpligt för dig mot bakgrund av din ekonomiska situation.