How collateral works in DeFi
A typical Aave loan:
- You deposit 10 ETH (say $30,000) into Aave.
- The protocol assigns your ETH a collateral factor — e.g. 82% — meaning you can borrow up to $24,600 against it.
- You borrow 15,000 USDC. Your LTV (loan-to-value) is 50% — well below the liquidation threshold (around 85%).
- If ETH drops far enough that your LTV crosses 85%, anyone can liquidate the position: repay part of your debt, seize part of your collateral (plus a bonus), and walk away with the spread.
Different collateral types carry different parameters. Stablecoins as collateral get high LTVs (85-95%); majors like WBTC and ETH get middle (70-82%); newer or more volatile alts get low LTVs (25-50%) or are excluded entirely.
Common collateral strategies
- Tax-efficient borrowing — deposit BTC, borrow USDC, spend the USDC without selling BTC (and triggering capital gains).
- Leveraged long — deposit ETH, borrow USDC, buy more ETH, deposit again. Each loop amplifies exposure.
- Yield stacking — deposit stETH (already earning staking yield), borrow ETH, use that ETH elsewhere. Compounds the yield surface.
- Stablecoin yield routing — deposit USDC, borrow another stable where lending rates are higher, redeposit.
Risks and considerations
Collateral-based systems fail in two main ways:
- Liquidation cascades — a sharp asset price drop triggers simultaneous liquidations, which depress the asset’s market price further, triggering more liquidations. This happened in March 2020 (MakerDAO’s infamous “Black Thursday”), May 2021, and during the UST depeg in 2022.
- Oracle manipulation — if the protocol’s price feed can be temporarily pushed off-market, an attacker can borrow against inflated collateral or force false liquidations. This vector has caused nine-figure losses across multiple protocols.
The practical defenses are conservative LTV (keep real leverage at 40-50% of the liquidation threshold, not 95%), avoid using volatile or low-liquidity assets as collateral where possible, watch the protocol’s oracle source (Chainlink push feeds are safer than on-chain TWAPs), and be aware of the specific liquidation mechanics of each protocol — some use health-factor thresholds, others use LTV-based, and the difference matters in stress events.