This is aligning with the thoughts I'm having lately about the new era of passive DeFi.
you add liquidity into pool and then an assigned curator/agent/operator run strategies using the liquidity on this vault and share profits with you as yield.
with modular pools, we are expecting that depositing in pool A and pool B, I'm not supposed to be exposed to the same risks but what if the curators of both pools though being different ran the same strategy?
then we will always face a blow out no matter what happens.
one solution to this is transparency of strategies— i don't want to see the APY I'm earning from pool A alone, I need to know the strategies that fetched those and on which protocols (already this could be tracked onchain looking at vault contracts and contracts they interact with).
with this, I will fully know if I'm getting my yield from MEVs, yield farming, lending pools etc.
and if pool A and B is maxing there yield from one strategy, I can derisk entirely on one pool and that's it.
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.
2,143
6
本頁面內容由第三方提供。除非另有說明,OKX 不是所引用文章的作者,也不對此類材料主張任何版權。該內容僅供參考,並不代表 OKX 觀點,不作為任何形式的認可,也不應被視為投資建議或購買或出售數字資產的招攬。在使用生成式人工智能提供摘要或其他信息的情況下,此類人工智能生成的內容可能不準確或不一致。請閱讀鏈接文章,瞭解更多詳情和信息。OKX 不對第三方網站上的內容負責。包含穩定幣、NFTs 等在內的數字資產涉及較高程度的風險,其價值可能會產生較大波動。請根據自身財務狀況,仔細考慮交易或持有數字資產是否適合您。


