Exploring the transformation of value in the digital age By Michael J. Casey, Chief Content Officer Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here. |
|
|
Hello readers, David Z. Morris filling in for Michael Casey today. I'll be trying to answer two questions of acute relevance in the wake of the latest crypto market retreat. First, is decentralized finance more trustworthy and robust than conventional financial services? And second, are some DeFi systems more stable than others?
Those questions became newly weighty as a wave of loan defaults and insolvencies in recent weeks hit centralized "lending platforms" like Celsius Network and Voyager Digital. Those entities sometimes leveraged DeFi rhetoric and, in Celsius' case, deployed customer funds to DeFi systems with extremely mixed results. Three Arrows Capital, arguably the Typhoid Mary of this year's crypto contagion, had major exposure to the luna (LUNA) token and terraUSD (UST) algorithmic stablecoin, a fatally flawed system based on some DeFi principles. (For a thorough description of these relationships, see my recent account of the Great Crypto Unwind.)
At the same time, more reputable DeFi systems have held up better than centralized lenders in the downturn. While their volumes and yields have declined sharply, systems like the Uniswap exchange, Aave lending system and DAI stablecoin have continued to function smoothly. Most importantly, the systems haven't been destabilized by huge losses from loan defaults or declining asset prices, which proved fatal for the centralized lenders. I'll explore answers to these questions when evaluating the risks of DeFi, as opposed to CeFi, in the column below. And have a listen to today's podcast episode after reading. |
|
|
Launched in September 2017, KuCoin is a global cryptocurrency exchange with its operational headquarters in Seychelles. As a user-oriented platform with focus on inclusiveness and community action reach, it offers over 700 digital assets, and currently provides spot trading, margin trading, P2P fiat trading, futures trading, staking, and lending to its 20 million users in 207 countries and regions. In 2022, KuCoin raised over $150 million in investments through a pre-Series B round, bringing total investments to $170 million with Round A combined, at a total valuation of $10 billion. KuCoin is currently one of the top 5 crypto exchanges according to CoinMarketCap. Forbes also named KuCoin one of the Best Crypto Exchanges in 2021. In 2022, The Ascent named KuCoin the Best Crypto App for enthusiasts. |
|
|
Why DeFi Might Be Safer Than TradFi
|
|
|
Tezos/Unsplash So why did centralized and human-monitored players like Celsius and Voyager prove so fragile compared to largely automated systems? And what separates DeFi systems that did fail, particularly LUNA, from those that held up?
The answers are complex, but essentially boil down to specific financial and technical design decisions. Some of these, such as systemic transparency, overcollateralized lending and automated liquidation of borrowers, are inherent to DeFi. Other features, including "tokenomics" and governance, can vary dramatically between systems – and go a long way to explaining why not all DeFi is created equal
What is DeFi?
First, a quick refresher. In theory, DeFi systems are to trading, lending and other financial services what bitcoin (BTC) is to currency. Because they're run on distributed blockchains, these systems are meant to be uncensorable and transparent. They are built largely around "smart contracts," on-chain functions that can be used by anyone with an internet connection and crypto in their wallet and which automatically execute without human supervision.
Smart contract-based DeFi services include digital asset trading and lending. Some stablecoins, such as MakerDAO's DAI, are also based on DeFi technology. A core concept for trading and lending services is "yield farming" or "liquidity mining," which rewards users for "staking" funds to liquidity pools. Standing pools of staked assets eliminate the need to directly match buyers with sellers or lenders with borrowers.
A further declared goal of DeFi is to dispense with centralized leadership and enable users to manage the systems, though that goal has been pursued inconsistently. For a deeper exploration, see CoinDesk's full DeFi explainer.
Transparency
Arguably the defining characteristic of decentralized finance systems, the feature from which all others flow, is their almost complete transparency. Much as you can track bitcoin transactions by looking directly at blockchain records, DeFi systems allow near-complete visibility into loans and order books. This notably includes visibility into "liquidation points," or asset prices at which the collateral for certain loans would be market-sold to cover losses. More on those in a moment.
This transparency is a sharp contrast to services like Celsius, which take depositor funds and deploy them in a wide variety of ways to generate yield. Depositors have almost no visibility into, much less oversight of, how those funds are deployed. Those deployments can include over-the-counter trades which are nearly impossible to spot on-chain, or intentional obfuscation of DeFi activities.
While that opacity can be a valid strategic choice for investment funds trying to outmaneuver competitors, it also means depositors in centralized systems are accepting a simply unknown amount of risk. The most dramatic illustration of this came with the revelation that a DeFi account known as 0Xb1 had been trading on behalf of Celsius, but did not disclose that connection – while apparently losing hundreds of millions of dollars.
"That is definitely one of the biggest issues when it comes to these [centralized lending] providers," says Eric Chen, founder of the DeFi protocol Injective. "They say they're going to deploy DeFi strategies for you, and they can undertake a lot more or a lot less risk than what the consumer prefers."
Tight lending
An even more important bit of transparency in DeFi comes from strict policies on loan collateral. One reason Three Arrows Capital blew up is that it was taking out an array of huge loans from funds that were seemingly unaware of Three Arrows' overall debt levels. In at least one case, a huge loan was issued with no collateral at all, apparently based purely on faith in Three Arrows.
But DeFi users face extremely conservative limits on borrowing, which help keep individual platforms stable. While Three Arrows (and traditional funds like Bill Hwang's Archegos) can leverage their reputation to harvest loans all over town, DeFi platforms require collateral for loans, and that collateral must be effectively "locked" within the systems.
That prevents the pledging of the same collateral for multiple loans. Recycling collateral can be a form of fraud, but it's hard to detect in traditional, centralized financial structures.
"Centralized providers, a lot of them are very credit-based," says Chen. "And you can use the same collateral multiple times."
The downside of DeFi collateralization standards, it should be noted, is relative inefficiency of capital. Because of that inefficiency, some question DeFi's long-term value without something akin to a credit-rating system or other paths to undercollateralized lending. On the other hand, if DeFi's capital inefficiency keeps leverage and risk from building up in the system, maybe that's not such a bad thing.
Transparent, automated liquidations
Though specifics vary, most DeFi systems are set up to automatically liquidate loan collateral before the collateral falls below the value of the loan. That's possible because collateral is locked into fully automated systems and forms a stark contrast to the frequently analog and interpersonal process by which centralized lenders issue margin calls for underwater borrowers.
The speed of liquidations is key to keeping protocols solvent. In a traditional lending context, including loans from centralized crypto exchanges to funds like Three Arrows, margin calling a large borrower can be an analog, slow, interpersonal process taking hours or days. That creates the opportunity for much larger imbalances to open up between falling collateral and outstanding loans.
And, of course, sometimes traditional loans don't get repaid at all. Because its loans were off-chain, Three Arrows Capital was able to simply "ghost" creditors when it became clear it was insolvent. It appears Three Arrows may have on the order of $2 billion in uncovered debt outstanding, which has become an existential threat to counterparties including Voyager Digital.
By contrast, Celsius, despite also appearing insolvent, has repaid several large loans from DeFi lending protocols including AAVE, Compound and Maker. In the case of the Maker loan, a final $41 million repayment in the DAI stablecoin unlocked nearly half a billion dollars' worth of collateral in wrapped bitcoin (wBTC).
In short, having collateral locked in a protocol seems to have a much greater disciplining effect than the legal agreements backing conventional loans. In fact, there remains some question of whether the protocols actually had legal primacy over other counterparties in the repayment stack, considering that Celsius entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection just days after those repayments.
It's hard to think of a clearer affirmation of the old saw that possession (of your collateral) is nine-tenths of the law.
Hunting liquidation points
That's one of the main reasons DeFi lending systems like Aave have weathered the crypto downturn better than centralized lenders. But transparent and automated liquidation also introduces extremely novel market dynamics, and perhaps its own set of risks.
Most notable is the visibility of borrowers' "liquidation points." Broadly, these are the price levels for particular assets at which a particular loan falls below required levels of collateralization. DeFi traders can identify specific price points that would trigger liquidations, and thus further major price drops.
These liquidation points are not publicly known in traditional asset markets, and their visibility in DeFi sets up fierce battles between bulls and bears when a major liquidation level is close – so-called "liquidation hunting." While this can create volatility, it also arguably makes things fairer. Because while they're not publicly known, various liquidation points in traditional markets are visible to entities like lenders and exchanges. That information asymmetry could easily be exploited by those centralized players.
That presents a bit of a philosophical quandary. Is it better for all players to know these liquidations points, creating a contentious but fair playing field? Or is it better that only a small number of people know, and the liquidation points don't get widely hunted but trigger drops that are complete surprises to most in the market?
Automated liquidations do have at least two clear downsides.
First, while they protect individual platforms, they may increase broader risk for cascading liquidations of particular assets. A major liquidation of a big block of collateral risks driving down the collateral value for a tranche of other loans, which could in turn be liquidated, pushing the asset down further.
Second, and perhaps more pernicious, automated liquidation can function as a backdoor method to obfuscate asset sales. For instance, the creator of a project may use an automated liquidation to indirectly dump its token in a way that's not transparent to users.
All DeFi is not created equal
While some DeFi projects have weathered the downturn, others most certainly have not. Above all, that includes the Luna Foundation Guard, which administered the luna ecosystem and algorithmic "stablecoin" terraUSD that collapsed in May. The system operated transparently and on-chain, fulfilling the most basic criteria for being considered "DeFi." But its example also highlights that DeFi can certainly be designed in unsustainable or high-risk ways.
In particular, it is troubling to the idea of decentralization that the LUNA system was using external subsidies to pay yield to users who deposited funds – even if no one was taking loans at those rates. The Anchor protocol, Luna's answer to a lending protocol like Aave, grew incredibly rapidly because it offered up to 20% interest on deposits. But that money came from a "yield fund" that periodically had to be refilled by Luna Foundation Guard administrators with funds from venture capitalists, rather than paying out yield generated from real loans.
Those subsidized yields helped attract deposits, substantially broadening the harm when the system collapsed. But exogenous subsidies aren't inherently against the ethos of DeFi.
"At the beginning, you can devote some capital to building a liquidity pool," says Maya Zehavi, an angel investor focused on DeFi. "I would call that active governance. [It's] what investors are putting in as a value add."
Indeed, an initial round of "yield farming" offers helped protocols, including Uniswap, to bootstrap liquidity pools that have since become self-sustaining. But those offers are usually time-limited, and robust DeFi systems adjust their yield based on loan demand. The problem with Luna and Anchor was that there was no plan to sunset the inflated yield rates, or allow them to adjust to match loan demand.
"What I see as natural DeFi is when you've developed a system that can generate its own fees," says Zehavi, "And regenerate and be sustainable."
Another variable between DeFi protocols is their approach to governance. A truly decentralized system would have no key figures or leaders – but in practice, many DeFi systems are controlled by a small group of developers.
"There's a key manager, there's a multisig that has a lot of control over user funds," says Eric Chen of Injective. "That almost feels custodial. Where user funds are lost, that's usually when it's something more centralized trying to disguise itself as being decentralized."
Many of these effectively centralized systems justify their founders' control as a step along the route to full decentralization. And indeed, there is no consensus about the best way to let users participate in system governance, such as decisions about yield structures.
"In the governance debate I'd take a nuanced view," says Zehavi. "Some stuff should be governed off-chain … I think that direct democracy has proven again and again that it's prone to manipulation."
Good DeFi, bad DeFi
Experts seem to agree there's no simple, straightforward way to separate robust DeFi structures from more fragile designs.
"There's not really a gold standard or a yardstick for it," says Chen. "You can tell easily by looking at code and contracts and how it's structured, but in terms of a general user that's pretty hard. It's honestly just something you learn over time."
For those who know what they're looking for, Zehavi cites a long list of criteria for evaluating a platform. "I'm looking at how big the TVL [total value locked] is, what the [asset] concentration is, how big the pools are, where the yield is coming from, who the founders are. And I look for smart money."
If you don't feel confident evaluating a platform on those points, the good news is there are simpler rubrics. First, the protocols that have made it through the current crisis have probably earned some long-term trust, barring major system changes.
The second guideline is as simple as investing advice gets, and seemingly just as hard to follow: If something seems too good to be true, it probably is.
"A good general rule is, if [yield] returns are being advertised as risk-free, and they're above the risk-free rate of the current market," Chen warns, "It's probably something a bit more on the concerning side." |
|
|
Off the Charts: Playing the Long Game
|
|
|
Today's chart looks at athletes who take salaries in crypto.
|
|
|
Despite the downturn in the crypto markets, professional athletes continue to announce that they are taking compensation in crypto. Just this week, Luana Pinheiro, a UFC fighter from Brazil, said she was working with BitWage, a payroll platform. At the same time, the New York Yankees has partnered with NYDIG, a New York bitcoin startup, allowing its employees to convert a portion of their paycheck to BTC via its platform. Why would these athletes take their earnings in a depreciating asset? Apparently, they are looking beyond the recent dip – which has seen Bitcoin fall from more than $40,000 in April to about $24,000 as of writing – to the longer term. "I do not think I will have a problem with Bitcoin going down or up," Pinheiro said in a statement. "If it was not volatile it would not go up either." Buying the top in November 2021, Odell Beckham, a wide receiver for the Los Angeles Rams, tweeted: "It's a NEW ERA & to kick that off I'm hyped to announce that I'm taking my new salary in bitcoin thanks to @CashApp." New eras last longer than a few weeks. The athlete announcements cover a full gamut of sports from UFC to baseball to gridiron and show the enduring appeal of crypto. But they've drawn criticism from many who say athletes should not be promoting risky investments so openly. Darren Rovell, a prominent sports reporter, calculated as of Jan 23, 2022 that Beckham had netted $35,000 on a $750,000 deal (after taxes). And this was only in January when BTC was worth more than $10,000 a pop than it is today. It will be interesting to see if the trend of crypto compensation in sports continues (and we'll have much more on this during CoinDesk's Sports Week next week). But, for now, these announcements seem to be more about signaling solidarity with crypto than any hope of making outsized money from it. - Sage Young, CoinDesk tech protocol reporter |
|
|
Hex Trust is a fully licensed digital asset custodian for financial institutions and organizations. Our bank-grade platform Hex Safe™ integrates top emerging blockchains, token standards, and licensed custody services for NFTs and metaverse assets. - Institutional-grade infrastructure: providing the highest standards of protection, scalability, and compliance
- Monetize digital assets: accessing DeFi, staking, and other on-chain services
- Enter the metaverse: integrating NFTs in your business operations safely
Unlock the full potential of your digital assets. Get started |
The Conversation: Jason Calacanis Rips into Crypto VCs
|
|
|
Angel investor Jason Calacanis went on Bloomberg's "Odd Lots" podcast this week and spelled out some inflammatory remarks, which led to a debate on the topic of venture capitalists and crypto. He argued that venture capitalists play an outsized role in crypto, even though crypto was originally intended to minimize venture capitalist involvement. Initial coin offerings (ICO) were supposed to remove the middleman and give everyday investors access by means of crowdfunding projects. But, at present, venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz controls a third of the Web3 market. Alas, according to Calacanis, the old god has been raised again. Listeners took to Twitter, however, and lambasted Calacanis for being a pot that called the kettle black. - One person, who uses the Twitter handle "Shovel-Stocks," said, "No thanks. Jason lost all credibility & should not throw stones when sitting in a glass House."
- Another, by the name of Jose, said, "I am wondering if Jason includes his podcast besties (David Sacks, Chamath) dumping tokens (eg, Solana) and SPACs (too many to list) on retail or if they are a special kind of security-dumping VC that gets carved out of the grifters category."
- Yet another said, "What did Jason say about him and his besties, live on air, laughing about how much solana they (though it seems Jason didn't do it himself, but was happy on behalf of his besties) dumped on retail? And let's not forget the SPACs."
- And finally, one user posted a picture of two identical cartoon Spider-Man figures pointing fingers at each other.
|
|
|
Relevant reads: Three Arrows Capital Saga Continues |
|
|
Sjo/Getty Images The biggest news in crypto this week remains the continued unfolding of the drama around Three Arrows Capital, the once-prominent crypto hedge fund that had $10 billion in assets before its liquidation last month. - Good news for Coinbase (COIN): The crypto exchange had no financial exposure to Three Arrows and the contagion that spread to Celsius and Voyager. Brandy Betz reported on the issue, but noted that the exchange did make non-material investments in Terraform Labs and has been hurt by the overall crypto decline.
- Bad news for retail investors: Customers of Celsius will likely bear the brunt of the crypto lender's failure. Cheyenne Ligon reported that the New Jersey-based firm will struggle to pay them back and has a $1.2 billion hole in its balance sheet.
- Yet another firm has fallen victim to the failings of Three Arrows: DeFinance Capital has been "materially affected" by the liquidation. Oliver Knight reported that the DeFinance Capital CEO is committed to recovering all assets that may have been affected.
|
|
|
|
EmoticonEmoticon