Fluid: lending platforms rating breakdown
Instadapp, 5 chains
The most capital-efficient design of the mid-size markets: it fuses lending and a DEX so the same collateral does two jobs, which is why $1.24bn of deposits generates 3.38% gross — two-thirds more than Aave at a fifteenth of the size. For a borrower, its liquidation mechanics are genuinely gentler than the standard model.
The most capital-efficient design of the mid-size markets: it fuses lending and a DEX so the same collateral does two jobs, which is why $1.24bn of deposits generates 3.38% gross — two-thirds more than Aave at a fifteenth of the size. For a borrower, its liquidation mechanics are genuinely gentler than the standard model.
How the score is built
Each criterion is scored 0–10 and weighted. The median column is the middle score across every entry in this ranking, so a row reads as a position rather than a number.
| Criterion | What we measured | Weight | Score | Category median | Rank | Weighted gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it | — | 32% | 7 | 6.5 | 3 of 10 | +0.16 |
| What the market actually earns | 3.38 gross yield per dollar deposited · computed · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 9 | 7.5 | 2 of 10 | +0.33 |
| Scale and the ability to exit | $1.24bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 7 | 7 | 5 of 10 | 0.00 |
| Risk architecture | — | 14% | 7 | 7 | 4 of 10 | 0.00 |
| Chains and assets | 5 chains with deposits · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 10% | 4 | 6 | 7 of 10 | -0.20 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by what the market actually earns, worth +0.33 points against the median
Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it: 7/10
Every exploit and every bad-debt event with dates and amounts, and then the question that decides whether it matters: were depositors made whole, and by whom. Euler lost $197m in March 2023 and returned 100% of it after negotiating with the attacker. Venus carried nine figures of bad debt from a single oracle manipulation in 2021. Those are opposite outcomes from superficially similar headlines, and a rating that treats "has been hacked" as one fact is useless.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 3rd of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.16 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 9, the worst 3.
What the market actually earns: 9/10
Computed by us: thirty days of protocol fees, annualised, divided by total value locked. That is the gross interest the market genuinely generated per dollar deposited — before the protocol’s cut and before incentives. It is the honest version of the APY a front end shows you, and it separates a market where borrowers are really paying from one where the TVL headline is parked capital earning close to nothing.
Scored 9 of 10 against a category median of 7.5, which places it 2nd of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.33 points above the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Scale and the ability to exit: 7/10
Total value locked at a stated timestamp, and whether the market is deep enough that a withdrawal at size does not itself move the utilisation rate. In lending, depth is not a convenience — a market that is 99% utilised cannot pay you out until somebody repays.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 5th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Risk architecture: 7/10
Sourced to documentation: are markets isolated or pooled, what oracle secures each collateral, who can change a listing or a loan-to-value ratio and how fast, and — for the newer curated-vault designs — who exactly is picking your risk and whether they carry any of it. A single shared pool means one bad listing can impair everyone.
Scored 7 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 4th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 14% weight that is exactly level with the median of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 3.
Chains and assets: 4/10
Deployments with real deposits, not deployment count. A protocol on forty chains with liquidity on three is scored on the three.
Scored 4 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 7th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.20 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 1.
Its nearest neighbours in this ranking
Questions about this score
How does Fluid earn more than Aave on the same assets?
+
Because the collateral is used twice. Deposits back loans and provide exchange liquidity simultaneously, so each dollar earns both lending interest and trading fees. Our measurement puts the combined gross yield at 3.38% per dollar deposited against Aave's 2.03%. The extra return is real and so is the extra exposure: the same capital now carries lending risk and market-making risk together.
What happens to Fluid's liquidations in a crash?
+
Its liquidation mechanics are more granular than the standard model — positions are unwound in smaller increments rather than in large discrete chunks, which is genuinely gentler for borrowers. The untested part is how that behaves when the integrated exchange side is also under stress, because the design has not yet been through a violent break at scale. We score it well on architecture and note the absence of that evidence rather than assuming it.