Maple: lending platforms rating breakdown
Institutional credit, 2 chains
A genuinely different product that belongs on this page precisely because it is different: Maple lends to named institutional borrowers, so the yield — 3.78% gross on $2.94bn — comes from credit risk rather than from over-collateralisation. Post-2022 it operates a far more conservative, largely secured model, and it publishes borrower and collateral disclosure that no anonymous pool can match.
A genuinely different product that belongs on this page precisely because it is different: Maple lends to named institutional borrowers, so the yield — 3.78% gross on $2.94bn — comes from credit risk rather than from over-collateralisation. Post-2022 it operates a far more conservative, largely secured model, and it publishes borrower and collateral disclosure that no anonymous pool can match.
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% | 5 | 6.5 | 8 of 10 | -0.48 |
| What the market actually earns | 3.78 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 | $2.94bn total value locked · sourced · 2026-08-27 · sourcescheduled queue, not instant withdrawal mechanics · sourced · 2026-08-27 · source | 22% | 6 | 7 | 8 of 10 | -0.22 |
| Risk architecture | — | 14% | 4 | 7 | 9 of 10 | -0.42 |
| Chains and assets | — | 10% | 3 | 6 | 8 of 10 | -0.30 |
Measured 27 August 2026 · weights and method · decided by incidents, bad debt, and who ate it, worth -0.48 points against the median
Incidents, bad debt, and who ate it: 5/10
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 5 of 10 against a category median of 6.5, which places it 8th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 32% weight that is 0.48 points below 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: 6/10
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 6 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 8th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 22% weight that is 0.22 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 10, the worst 4.
Risk architecture: 4/10
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 4 of 10 against a category median of 7, which places it 9th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 14% weight that is 0.42 points below the median contribution of the weighted total. The best score in the category is 8, the worst 3.
Chains and assets: 3/10
Deployments with real deposits, not deployment count. A protocol on forty chains with liquidity on three is scored on the three.
Scored 3 of 10 against a category median of 6, which places it 8th of 10 among lending platforms on this criterion. At a 10% weight that is 0.30 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
Incidents priced into this score
- 2022-12-01 — Orthogonal Trading, a Maple pool delegate and borrower, misrepresented its financial position after losses tied to FTX. Roughly $36m of loans defaulted and lenders in the affected pools took permanent losses. Maple subsequently rebuilt around a largely secured lending model. [users made whole: no] [source]
Questions about this score
Did Maple lenders lose money in 2022?
+
Yes, permanently. Orthogonal Trading, a pool delegate and borrower, misrepresented its financial position after losses connected to FTX; roughly $36m of loans defaulted and lenders in those pools were not made whole. The risk was under-collateralised credit, exactly as documented in advance — and the documentation did not make anyone whole. That is the distinction between disclosure and protection, and it is the reason this category is scored on outcomes.
How is Maple different from Aave or Compound?
+
You are underwriting credit rather than lending against collateral. Aave lends against over-collateralised crypto positions that liquidate automatically; Maple lends to named institutions on terms negotiated per pool, so your return depends on those borrowers repaying. That is a legitimate business with a higher yield attached — 3.78% gross on our measurement — and it is not a savings account, whatever the interface suggests.
How quickly can I withdraw from Maple?
+
On a schedule, not on demand. Withdrawals run through a queue tied to the loan terms underneath, so 'liquidity' here means waiting for a window rather than clicking a button. That is the honest structure of lending to borrowers with fixed terms, and it is a material difference from every pooled protocol in this rating.