In-Depth Analysis: Risk Control Mechanisms in Lending Protocols Maker, Aave, and Compound

·

Leveraged funds act as a double-edged sword, amplifying market cycles. During bull markets, they fuel price surges, while in downturns—like recent crypto crashes—they trigger cascading liquidations. OKX Cloud Chain data reveals that on June 14 alone, Aave and Compound saw $53.1M and $45.44M in liquidations, respectively.

This article dissects the risk management frameworks of three leading lending protocols: Maker, Aave, and Compound, focusing on their oracle systems, collateral ratios, liquidation thresholds, and emergency mechanisms.


Key Findings at a Glance

  1. Oracle Security: All three protocols employ robust oracle systems. Aave and Compound use Chainlink, while Maker built a custom solution with a 1-hour price delay.
  2. Stablecoin Support: USDC is widely accepted across protocols, whereas USDT—despite its market cap—is excluded as collateral.
  3. Capital Efficiency: Aave leads with higher Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios and supports stETH, attracting billions in deposits.
  4. Emergency Protocols: Maker and Aave can mint additional tokens to cover deficits; Compound relies on governance for such scenarios.
  5. Borrowing Limits: Maker imposes per-Vault caps, Compound limits select assets, while Aave has no restrictions.
  6. Revenue Models: Maker burns MKR with surplus fees; Aave shares profits with stakers in its Safety Module; Compound distributes via governance.

Maker: The Pioneer of Decentralized Stablecoins

Oracle Mechanism

Maker’s oracle design pioneered decentralized medianizers and off-chain aggregation—later adopted by Chainlink. Here’s how it works:

  1. Feeds: Anonymous individuals or known entities submit price feeds from chosen exchanges.
  2. Medianizer: Aggregates prices, computes the median, and queues it via an Oracle Security Module (OSM) with a 1-hour delay to deter manipulation.

👉 Explore Maker’s oracle design

Collateralization & Liquidation

Auctions & Emergency Shutdown


Aave: Capital Efficiency and Innovation

Oracle & LTV Ratios

Liquidation & Safety Module

👉 Learn about Aave’s Safety Module


Compound: Governance-Centric Risk Management

Oracle & Collateral Factors

Liquidation & Governance


FAQs

Q1: Why does USDT face restrictions despite its market dominance?
A1: Protocols cite USDT’s opaque reserves and legal risks, favoring USDC’s transparency.

Q2: How does Maker’s 1-hour price delay enhance security?
A2: It mitigates flash loan attacks by reducing arbitrage opportunities from short-term price manipulation.

Q3: Which protocol offers the highest LTV for ETH?
A3: Aave permits 83% LTV for WETH, versus Maker’s 130–170% and Compound’s 82% for ETH.

Q4: Can users recover funds during Maker’s emergency shutdown?
A4: Yes, Vault owners reclaim excess collateral; DAI holders redeem at proportional collateral value.

Q5: How does Aave’s stETH integration boost deposits?
A5: By accepting stETH (with 73% LTV), Aave captured $1.56B in deposits, leveraging Ethereum’s staking demand.


Conclusion

Each protocol tailors risk controls to its ethos: Maker prioritizes stability with conservative collateral ratios, Aave optimizes capital efficiency, and Compound leans on governance flexibility. Understanding these mechanisms helps users navigate risks—whether minting DAI, leveraging stETH, or borrowing against WBTC.

👉 Compare DeFi protocols in real-time