Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2506.12855

Automated Risk Management Mechanisms in DeFi Lending Protocols: A Crosschain Comparative Analysis of Aave and Compound

Erum Iftikhar·Wei Wei·John Cartlidge
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Blockchain-based decentralised lending is a rapidly growing and evolving alternative to traditional lending, but it poses new risks. To mitigate these risks, lending protocols have integrated automated risk management tools into their smart contracts. However, the effectiveness of the latest risk management features introduced in the most recent versions of these lending protocols is understudied. To close this gap, we use a panel regression fixed effects model to empirically analyse the cross-version (v2 and v3) and cross-chain (L1 and L2) effectiveness of liquidation mechanisms, measured through TVL and total revenue as proxies for performance of the two most popular lending protocols, Aave and Compound, during the period Jan 2021 to Dec 2024. Our analysis reveals that liquidation events in v3 of both protocols lead to an increase in total value locked and total revenue, with stronger impact on the L2 blockchain compared to L1. In contrast, liquidations in v2 have an insignificant impact, which indicates that the most recent v3 protocols have better risk management than the earlier v2 protocols. We also show that L1 blockchains are the preferred choice among large investors for their robust liquidity and ecosystem depth, while L2 blockchains are more popular among retail investors for their lower fees and faster execution.

Explore related subjects

q-fin.RM

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Erum Iftikhar, Wei Wei, John Cartlidge. 2025-10-01. Automated Risk Management Mechanisms in DeFi Lending Protocols: A Crosschain Comparative Analysis of Aave and Compound. https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.12855

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Dynamic reinsurance via martingale transport

We formulate a dynamic reinsurance problem in which the insurer seeks to satisfy prescribed terminal moment or risk-based constraints while minimizing the $L^2$-norm of the ceded risk. As a tool for this analysis, we first use techniques from martingale optimal transport to study the auxiliary problem in which the insurer matches a given terminal distribution of the surplus process. We show that, under suitable assumptions, this auxiliary problem admits a tractable solution analogous to the Bass martingale. We then relax this condition by only requiring certain moment or risk-based constraints.

q-fin.RM↗
arXiv2026

Risk Measures under Paired-Ambiguity: A Deep Learning Reflected BSDE Framework

We study optimal stopping under dynamic risk measures with simultaneous ambiguity in the probability model and the discount rate. We introduce a paired ambiguity framework combining Girsanov model uncertainty with cash subadditive risk evaluation and characterize the stopping value by an upper reflected backward stochastic differential equation (BSDE). We establish structural properties of the resulting stopping operator and study quadratic drivers associated with entropic risk measures, obtaining explicit stopping rules in several benchmark cases. We then develop a deep learning scheme for the reflected quadratic BSDE. The convergence analysis uses discrete reflection and truncation to reduce the quadratic problem to a globally Lipschitz system and combines reflected BSDE discretization estimates with neural network approximation errors. Numerical experiments for American options illustrate the effects of discount rate and entropic ambiguity on stopping values and exercise decisions.

q-fin.RM↗
arXiv2026

When Is the Gini Loading More Prudent? Tail Structure and the Ordering of the Standard Deviation and the Gini Mean Difference

The standard deviation (SD) and the Gini mean difference (GMD) are the two canonical measures of variability used to load premiums, set risk margins and allocate capital, yet no universal ordering between them exists. We show that the comparison is \emph{equivalent} to asking whether the coefficient of variation of the spacing $|X-X'|$ generated by two independent copies of the risk exceeds unity, so that the exponential law -- whose spacing is again exponential -- is the universal knife-edge separating the two regimes. Reading the GMD as twice the maxiance, that is, as a second-order \emph{dual} moment in the sense of Yaari's dual theory, the problem becomes an explicit comparison of primal and dual second-order variability. We derive a closed-form representation of the mean excess function of the spacing in terms of the hazard and reverse hazard rates of $X$, and use it to prove that heavy-tailed behavior -- a decreasing hazard rate or an increasing reverse hazard rate -- yields SD dominance, whereas two-sided light tails yield GMD dominance; within the monotone aging classes, equality characterizes the exponential law. Both regimes are stable under truncation, convolution and mixing, which makes them operational in collective risk and frailty models. We classify the severity, lifetime and frequency distributions of actuarial practice accordingly, quantify the consequences for SD- and Gini-loaded premium principles and for Gini-type tail risk measures, and show that the sign of $\mathrm{SD}-\mathrm{GMD}$ across thresholds furnishes a simple diagnostic for tail aging.

q-fin.RM↗