So a more sustainable protocol would offer lower yields because there’s more people willing to borrow and lend tokens.
New protocols offer higher yield to drive in more users and build credibility.
Time and user experience distinguishes one protocol over another and maybe even the density of the more dense pool has a gravitational pull from others.
1 Like
Rates in the video:
AAVE: 2.91
CREAM: 2.60
COMPOUNT: 2.54
DYDX: 2.23
Current rates from https://defirate.com/lend/
AAVE: 2.75
CREAM: -
COMPOUNT: 2.83
DYDX: 0
They all seem comparable to what’s in the video besides dydx, which is supposedly at 0% ???
Maybe I should just go borrow some, it’s basically free money right 
2 Likes
I’m trying to understand how the presented flashloan attack worked. From per my understanding the attacker used the leveraged short to both pump his borrowed asset price and give him exit liquidity for closing the flashloan. Then he profited from the dumped price of the borrowed asset (aka pump of his collateral). And this was possible just because Compound didn’t liquidate him when he was dumping the collateral value in the first part. Right?
I’m also trying to figure out: since this is clearly a zero sum transaction… who did actually took the loss? The margin trading protocol? 
2 Likes
So, I don’t think that DefiPulse is offering their “earn income” feature, or there might be some sort of site maintenance, but I can’t get to it. I’ll be using APY guy as well as an APR to APY converter to compare the annual percentage yields instead 
Anyway, just comparing the APY’s of certain tokens you mentioned such as BUSD (18.3%) to APY’s of cryptocurrencies like BTC (4.5%) or ETH (5%) - it is obvious that you can receive a waaaay higher yield by lending BUSD than any established crypto like the major two.
I think that other than the basic supply and demand correlation that results in a higher yield for lenders when there is more demand from borrowers than the supply from lenders, there is also a large inherent risk in lending a currency that is comparatively new, and perhaps lacking in use-cases and adoption rates. Because of this, such currencies would obviously be more volatile and vulnerable to even just flat out being discredited/disused/dissolved.
2 Likes
I totally agree that the Protocol Wars make APY yield farming quite attractive for yield farmers, simply because of the gigantic risks involved in the general playing field. Simply put, there is so much risk that surely, lenders would demand a high return for taking on these risks, because of the very real chance that any of these protocols, no matter how attractive or stable they may seem, may simply collapse.
3 Likes
I agree completely. Also, very succinctly explained - great job, man.
3 Likes
I appreciate dude, made my day !!!
1 Like
Supply and demand of liquidity providers and borrowers. Also, newer contracts with less established reputation also have higher interest rates. This to incentivize usage to while the trust isn’t there.
1 Like
The short answer is supply and demand. The tokenomics obviously cause a fluctuation from one protocol to another as well. I also think the human element gets left out in the equation a lot of times. Development and community moves the needle a lot of times when technical analysis says otherwise.
1 Like
The interest rate difference is dependant on the amount of liquidity in a pool and the demand for that incentive to be made.
1 Like
Glad it wasnt just me that couldnt find it!
Not really sure how to use it properly
1 Like
Project founder involvement in what way? As in their money in the protocol?
1 Like
I personally think that the different rates depend also on the adoption. Let’s look at compound , that was the first thing I did playing around with $ 25, I got a 2% APR for my ceth (compound eth). Their platform is older and more thrust worthy , so they offer less APR . You have to trust the protocol to lock up your money and get interest. The newer the platform the more APR they offer. Also the risk of loosing your money is higher.
As of now Blockfi is 8.5% , nexo 8% and fulcrum 5%.
I only played around with compound . The only problem right now with eth based protocols is the gas price is excruciating. To withdraw a small amount you have to pay more than the investment you made.
3 Likes
The rates on the protocols can and do vary depending on supply and demand of pooled money in the protocols for lending and borrowing. Also, a protocol such as YearnFinance plays it’s part as it aggregates for user best profits across protocols.
2 Likes
I think a large part of the differing rates have to do with how new a project is and how many users are involved. As a project gets more adoption and higher usage, the rates typically start to lower. In this current DeFi environment there is a lot of “mercenary capital” where people are just moving from one protocol to another and chasing rates. There is definitely some maturing of the ecosystem that is needed to stabilize this.
2 Likes
Well explained by Jack. It’s basically due to demand and supply. Also higher interest rates could mean more riskier investment is there.
1 Like
Yes agreeing with Muletownpatriot
1 Like
They are different because DeFi lending protocols use floating interest rates relative to the supply and demand of their underlying capital pools. Lending rates rise when there’s more demand than supply and fall when there’s more supply than demand.
1 Like
Interesting point @MuletownPatriot, I suppose ‘mercenary capital’ plays a significant roll in how the supply and demand across platforms is affected, and that it will attract many users as a potential profitable strategy to follow.
1 Like
evening, sorry for late response
i was agreeing with BlissBang´s statement where the founder affects supply and demand in the protocol, how independent it is from the founders vs. how it is in actuality directed by activity of users.
2 Likes