Novozhenov argues that despite lingering governance, security and regulatory hurdles that have shuttered several protocols, DeFi remains resilient.
Apr 12, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
DeFi protocol ZeroLend’s decision to shut down after three years in February, citing thin margins, hacks and inactive chains, landed with a tone the market now recognizes. Another reminder that the industry’s early optimism has given way to a far more demanding reality.
Zeroland isn’t alone. Several DeFi protocols and adjacent crypto platforms have wound down in 2025 and early 2026, squeezed by low usage, liquidity collapses, security incidents and token-driven business models that never achieved durable economics. For instance, Polynomial, a DeFi derivatives protocol that processed 27 million transactions, recently paused operations and is prioritizing user fund safety with plans to relaunch under the same team and a refined execution path. The confident mood across crypto has turned cautious.
But that wariness is cyclical, not terminal.
We are in a bear phase. In every asset class, bear markets contract speculative demand, thin liquidity and expose fragile structures. Weak models break, and strong ones consolidate. What we are witnessing in DeFi is not extinction but filtration.
The data shows rotation, not collapse
The slowdown is visible. Total value locked (TVL), long treated as DeFi’s headline metric, has fallen from roughly $167 billion at its October 2025 peak to around $100 billion in early February. That is a sharp drawdown in a short period and reflects a clear cooling of speculative capital.
Yet TVL alone does not define structural health.
Stablecoin market capitalization has continued to expand, recently surpassing $300 billion. Growth may have moderated at the margin, but the broader signal is unmistakable: liquidity is repositioning toward lower-volatility instruments and infrastructure that serves practical utility.
Institutional behavior reinforces that interpretation. Apollo’s investment in Morpho, one of the fastest-growing lending protocols, signals long-term conviction. A trillion-dollar asset manager does not deploy capital into infrastructure it believes is structurally broken. It allocates where it sees efficiency, scalability and staying power. The data suggests capital rotation instead of systemic collapse.
The structural gaps DeFi still must solve
ZeroLend’s closure, however, highlights unresolved weaknesses that define DeFi’s current phase.
Security risk remains systemic. DeFi operates through smart contracts, where code governs capital flows. Audits reduce exposure, but they do not eliminate it. Sophisticated exploits can erase years of accumulated trust in minutes because capital is programmatically accessible. This concentration of financial logic and liquidity makes DeFi uniquely attractive to attackers.
That said, not all protocols are equally fragile. Platforms such as Aave and Morpho have accumulated operating history, multiple audits, deep liquidity, institutional backers and visible teams whose reputations are intertwined with protocol stability. In a sector without harmonized global regulation, reputation functions as a form of soft governance.
Governance itself presents a second tension. Decentralization redistributes power; it does not eliminate concentration. Governance tokens enable community voting, but voting weight can cluster. Large holders can influence collateral parameters, risk models or incentive structures. Users, therefore, bear governance risk alongside market risk. Transparency is high. Stability is still maturing.
Regulation remains the third unresolved variable. Europe’s MiCA framework has introduced clarity for crypto assets broadly, but DeFi remains largely undefined. In the United States, regulatory posture has shifted with political cycles. Proposals to impose KYC-style obligations on decentralized protocols confront a practical question: who performs compliance in an autonomous system governed by code?
There is currently no technological architecture that seamlessly embeds global regulatory compliance into permissionless smart contracts without compromising decentralization. That ambiguity deters conservative capital, yet it has not halted development.
Why DeFi lending remains economically rational
Paradoxically, bear markets may be when DeFi lending is most logical to use.
Long-term crypto holders frequently face a liquidity dilemma. Their wealth is concentrated in digital assets. Selling into weakness crystallizes losses and forfeits upside exposure. Borrowing against collateral preserves participation while unlocking stable liquidity.
DeFi enables that structure with clarity. Users pledge crypto assets and borrow stablecoins at rates that often fall below 5%, depending on asset pair and utilization dynamics. Compared with traditional asset-backed lending, these terms are competitive, and the mechanics are transparent. Collateral ratios are predefined, and liquidation thresholds are automatic, which means there is no discretionary credit committee adjusting terms mid-cycle.
Liquidation risk is real. If collateral values fall sharply, positions are closed algorithmically. But participants understand the parameters in advance. In centralized environments, flexibility may exist, yet discretion can cut both ways. DeFi’s execution is impartial. For sophisticated users, predictability is a feature.
What the shakeout is actually filtering
The current contraction is also clarifying which models are sustainable. Protocols that relied heavily on token emissions to attract mercenary liquidity are struggling as incentives fade. In contrast, platforms with sustainable revenue streams, diversified liquidity pools, institutional integrations and transparent governance structures are consolidating.
The market is distinguishing between subsidy-driven growth and genuine lending demand. Infrastructure-level integrations, including exchange partnerships and institutional backing, are becoming more important than headline yield.
Adoption remains the missing link. For DeFi to move beyond early adopters, two dynamics must evolve simultaneously. I’m talking about broader financial literacy around onchain mechanisms and trusted distribution channels that abstract technical complexity.
Large platforms such as Coinbase and Kraken have begun integrating DeFi functionality into retail-facing environments. When intermediaries distribute DeFi lending products with user-friendly interfaces, they act as bridges between permissionless infrastructure and mainstream users. Retail demand follows comprehension. Institutional distribution follows demand.
Banks once dismissed crypto entirely. Today, many provide structured exposure. The same gradual integration is plausible for collateralized onchain lending.
Consolidation is a necessary phase
Every financial innovation progresses through subsidy, speculation and consolidation. DeFi is now in consolidation.
ZeroLend’s closure is not evidence that DeFi has failed, as some have framed it. It is evidence that DeFi is being compelled to mature. Because at the end of the day, stress tests do not kill durable systems. They reveal them.
Note: The views expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinDesk, Inc. or its owners and affiliates.
More For You
Most crypto privacy models weaken as blockchain data grows. Encryption-based models like Zcash strengthen. CoinDesk Research maps the five privacy approaches and examines the widening gap.
Why it matters:
As blockchain adoption scales, the metadata available to machine learning models scales with it. Obfuscation-based privacy approaches are structurally degrading as a result. This report provides a comprehensive comparison of all five major crypto privacy architectures and a framework for evaluating which models remain durable as AI capabilities improve.
