Aave is a DeFi protocol that uses a liquikishu on coinbase walletdity pool to provide lending services, stable interest rates and lightning loans.
Generalized: A protocol designed to transmit information across multiple blockchains. Due to its low complexity, this design enjoys a strong netbitcoin koers uitlegwork effect-a single integration of the project allows it to access the entire ecosystem within the bridge. The disadvantage is that some designs usually trade-off between security and decentralization to achieve this scalability effect. This may have complex and unexpected consequences for the ecosystem. One of the use cases is IBC, which is used to send information in two heterogeneous chains (with a guarantee of finality).In addition, according to the mechanism used to verify cross-chain transactions, there are roughly three types of bridge designs:
Type 1: External validators & Federations (External validators & Federations)This type of bridging scheme usually has a group of verifiers that monitor the "mailbox" addresses on the source chain and perform operations on the target chain based on consensus. Asset transfer usually works like this: lock assets on the "mailbox", and then mint the same amount of assets on the target chain. These validators usually deposit separate tokens as collateral to ensure the security of the network.Type 2: Light clients & RelaysParticipants monitor events on the source chain and generate encrypted packaging proofs about past events recorded on the chain. These proofs will be forwarded to the contract on the target chain (such as "light client") along with the block header, and then verify whether an event is recorded, and perform operations after verification. This design mechanism requires some participants to "relay" the block headers and proofs. Although users can "self-relay" transactions, there is indeed an active assumption that the relay will continue to forward data. This is a relatively secure bridging design because it guarantees the effective delivery of trustlessness without trusting intermediate entities. But it is also resource-intensive, because developers must build a new smart contract on each new target chain to parse the source chain's state proof; the verification process itself requires a large amount of gas.Type 3: Liquidity networks
This is similar to a peer-to-peer network, where each node acts as a "router", holding a "library" of source and target chain assets. These networks usually take advantage of the security of the underlying blockchain; through the use of locking and dispute mechanisms, it can be ensured that routers will not steal users' funds. Because of this, a liquid network like Connext may be a safer choice for users who transfer large amounts of value. In addition, this type of bridge may be most suitable for cross-chain asset transfer, because the assets provided by the router are the original assets of the target chain, rather than derivative assets that cannot be completely replaced by each other.It should be noted that any given bridge above is a two-way communication channel. There may be independent models in each channel, so this classification cannot accurately represent mixed models such as Gravity, Interlay, and tBTC. Because they all have light clients in one direction and validator nodes in the other direction.In Aave v1, the borrower pays the lender the borrowing interest rate. When users borrow assets, they need to pay 0.00001% of the loan amount as the interest rate, which is the agreement service fee. 20% of this fee will be used to provide financial support for Aave's referral program, and the remaining 80% will be transferred to the agreement. In addition, when borrowers apply for flash loans, they also need to pay 0.09% of the loan amount as expenses. 70% of this money is used by the lender, and the remaining 30% will be allocated between the recommender and Aave based on the "28%" ratio.
Uniswap's main operating income is transaction fees. In Uniswap V1, users will be charged 0.3% of the transaction value (GMV) each time they exchange tokens. Starting from Uniswap V2, the agreement splits the transaction fee of the above-mentioned "0.3% of the transaction volume", in which the liquidity provider will receive 0.25% of the transaction volume income, and the remaining 0.05% will go to UNI token holders. Someone. For V3, when adding liquidity, there are 3 levels of fee rate to choose from: 0.05%, 0.3% and 1%.Uniswap's agreement income needs to be added to V2 and V3, because the agreement fee structure of v2 and v3 is different. The income generated by Uniswap is transferred to retained earnings to maintain Uniswap's ecology and operations, or passed to UNI holders through a destruction mechanism similar to MarkerDao.Through this article, we have a deeper understanding of how agreements work and the value they generate. Next, let's talk about the role of agreement income in project analysis. Generally, agreement income can be used for asset evaluation, in a comparable analysis to assist investors in judging which projects are undervalued or overvalued. It mainly adopts three indicators: market-to-sales ratio P/S (market value to income ratio), price-to-earnings ratio P/E (market value to earnings ratio), etc. Although these indicators are not the absolute best judgment criteria, they are very helpful in comparing NFT projects of the same type.In traditional finance, the P/E ratio is the ratio of the stock price to the company’s earnings. As a measure of how many years it takes for a company to obtain its market value, the P/E ratio reflects to a certain extent investors’ expectations of a company’s future profitability. In the blockchain world, the P/E ratio is the ratio of market value to earnings. It can reflect the expectation of future income and cash flow, one of the tools to measure the efficiency of assets, and it can also be used as an indicator when comparing projects.
About #click to browse
This research report belongs to Mint Ventures' # series scanning series. Compared with the #深研报 series which conducts comprehensive analysis of individual projects, the focus of #Scan series articles is to focus on the development trend of the search, and the horizontal comparison of the growing projects. From the above, we can see the unique dynamics and potential projects in the business.FocusAbout #click to browseThis issue# focuses on topics of concern, especially the new public chain camp and the Ethereum camp to report on the development and game trends of the project.
The story project is one of the most important in the history of the Defi field, with a long history of a large number of white horse-level projects, such as the early days of Aave and Compound MakerDAO. With the rapid development of the new public chain, a large number of introduction projects scattered in the new public chain and multiple chains have emerged.In addition to the differentiation of the deployment of public chains, the business types of lending projects have evolved from basic lending and stable currency lending to new businesses such as leveraged mining lending with targeted scenarios. In addition, credit lending mainly for institutional-level customers, risk grading agreements derived from existing lending agreements, and interest rate derivatives are also gradually growing.Although many loan projects have mature business models and abundant cash flow income, there is still huge room for innovation in this industry, and it is still possible to give birth to new giants such as Aave. It is precisely because of this that lending projects are still one of the key directions of the DeFi entrepreneurial team.After scanning the newly born projects in the past 2 months, we selected 4 more representative loan projects for key analysis. They either broke out rapidly in business or had unique mechanism innovations. Through this research Report, we try to answer the following questions:
What is the actual business situation of these projects?What are their product positioning, mechanism or token design innovations?
For those fast-growing projects, what are the sources of growth and how sustainable are they?The track value of the loan business
Like the trading platform, the lending project is also the basic liquidity layer of the crypto world. It plays the role of a bank in the crypto world. Its essence is to coordinate the supply and demand of funds from multiple parties and match liquidity across periods. The business ceiling of this track will expand simultaneously with the expansion of the scale of the encryption business.On the other hand, the demand for matching funds is long-term, and there is no doubt about the sustainability of this track. Although the current funding needs for encrypted lending mainly come from investment leverage, arbitrage, and short-term capital turnover, with the progress of compliance, the channel between the traditional world and encrypted finance will eventually be opened, and the real-world collateral ( The introduction of lending platforms such as real estate and corporate credits, and issuing loans to non-crypto players through stablecoins are all things that are gradually happening, which will bring more room for development to the industry.Whether as entrepreneurs, investors or ordinary users in this industry, the track of crypto lending is far from the final form. There are still a large number of new products and rich investment opportunities worth looking forward to.As of September 16, 2021, Defi's total TVL has hit a new high since May, reaching 180 billion U.S. dollars. Although the proportion of borrowed TVL has declined, it still occupies the bulk, with a TVL of approximately US$50 billion.In terms of business volume, the established projects Aave, Compound and MakerDAO still firmly occupy the top three positions, and their TVL accounts for more than 70% of the entire lending market.However, the rise of emerging lending projects is also amazing. The top ten projects in TVL include Anchor ($3.12 billion) on Terra, Benqi ($1.23 billion) on the avalanche agreement, and Qubit ($400 million) on BSC. Unlike the big three lending giants that originated in Ethereum, these fast-growing lending forces all come from Ethereum’s competitors, which is the hottest narrative at the moment-the new public chain.
What is even more surprising is that in addition to the earlier launch time of Anchor (in March this year), the official launch time of the other two projects is only less than one month.In terms of the type of lending business, whether it is the number of projects or the amount of funds, basic lending projects account for a higher proportion, followed by leveraged mining lending projects, and other relatively new ones such as risk-graded interest rate products. The business volume is currently relatively small.
Project StatusProduct launch time: August 24, 2021
Qubit is a decentralized currency market that uses a mainstream borrowing capital pool model. Qubit's development and operation team is the team behind Pancakebunny-Mound, which was first deployed on BSC, and there are plans for multi-chain expansion in the future.Project Features
The main features of Qubit compared to other basic lending projects are:Its token QBT can increase the rate of return of deposit users after lock-up, which is called "Boost" functionQubit is part of Mound’s product matrix, and Mound’s products are highly combinableQubit does not support lightning loan function
Business conditionsBusiness data
Token value captureCore function: revenue acceleration
Up to now, the main function of QBT is to obtain qScore after lock-up. Through qScore, deposit users can accelerate their deposit income (from the increase in QBT deposit subsidies).This mechanism is similar to Curve's Locker mechanism. Curve's Locker function and economic model consolidate its original competitive advantage and increase the switching cost of liquidity providers and investors. It is a very eye-catching design. However, when the mechanism is applied to a loan agreement, will it still have a good effect? The author remains skeptical about this.
First of all, the reason why some people are willing to lock up the position of Curve's token CRV for a long time after buying it is caused by Curve's strong position in the stable asset business chain and the competition for the governance power of Curve by multiple participants. Because governance power on the Curve platform means two core resources: the baton of liquidity and the accelerator of revenue.Since the issuer of stable consideration assets (stable currency, stETH and other pledge certificates and renBTC and other BTC cross-chain assets are stable consideration assets), they have great requirements on the stability and transaction depth of their operating assets, so they choose Curve to list. Assets and attracting market-making liquidity are very rigid requirements, which creates a strong position of Curve relative to asset operators, which is determined by the business positioning of its Top1 stable asset exchange platform.In terms of the expansion of asset lending scenarios, the demand from asset operators is far less strong, which results in a large number of less demanders for Qubit governance rights, and the overall lock-up willingness is difficult to reach the level of Curve.In addition to the revenue acceleration function, QBT currently has no other functional scenarios, and there is no QBT repurchase or dividend mechanism for the borrowing spread income of the Qubit platform.
On the whole, QBT tokens are currently weak in capturing the overall economic value of the platform.risk control
Qubit does not have a special design for risk control. It basically adopts a method similar to the mainstream lending agreement Aave. Each mortgageable asset has two types: LTV (Loan-to-Value, borrowing ratio) and liquidation threshold (Liquidation Threshold). The main parameters, the former determines the upper limit ratio of funds that can be lent for a fixed-value collateral, and the latter determines when the debt/collateral comes to the ratio, the liquidation window will be opened.However, the current borrowing ratio of all Qubit assets is consistent with the liquidation line, instead of Aave's method of using the liquidation line to be higher than the borrowing ratio.
Qubit's LTV and clearing line parameters (data not updated), source: Qubit documentAt present, the borrowing rate of most assets on Qubit is 60%, which is slightly higher than the initial 50%. While this reduces the risk, it also reduces the pledger's capital utilization efficiency to some extent, especially the mortgage rate of all stablecoin assets is only 60%. There is still a lot of room for optimization of the overall parameters.