Aave is moving to wind down lending markets on six low-revenue blockchains, including Soneium, Aptos, zkSync and Scroll, after the deployments each generated less than $5,000 in quarterly revenue under the protocol’s standard fee structure. The planned withdrawal would affect $98.1 million in supplied assets and $15.6 million in outstanding debt, placing borrowers and liquidity suppliers on smaller networks at the center of Aave’s shift toward fewer, more economically sustainable deployments.
The decision reflects a hardening view within decentralized finance: deploying lending contracts is relatively simple, but running a reliable credit market requires costly infrastructure that cannot be supported by a few thousand dollars of revenue each quarter. Aave has set a target of at least $2 million in annual revenue for new chain deployments, a level intended to cover oracle feeds, risk monitoring, liquidation infrastructure and ongoing operational work.
On Ethereum, by comparison, Aave generated $142 million in revenue last year, according to the withdrawal plan. Its newer V4 version has drawn more than $300 million in deposits within months of launch as the protocol expanded to networks including Linea. The contrast places the smaller deployments under sharper scrutiny: their deposits have reportedly fallen 95% while borrowing demand has failed to develop into recurring lending activity.
Low revenue meets high operating costs
Aave charges a share of interest paid by borrowers, with the proposal using a standard fee of $0.13 for every $1 of interest generated. That arrangement can produce substantial revenue on networks with deep collateral pools and active borrowing, but it offers little support where lending volumes remain thin.
The costs of operating a lending market do not fall proportionately with deposits. Price oracles must keep delivering dependable asset values; liquidators need enough on-chain trading liquidity to sell seized collateral; and risk managers must monitor volatile assets, bridge exposures and stablecoin conditions. A liquidation route that creates more than 40% price slippage during a sale can turn a protective mechanism into an additional source of losses.
Risk-monitoring contracts across Aave deployments were estimated in the proposal to cost between $5 million and $8 million annually. The six markets slated for closure lack the revenue base to cover a meaningful share of that expense, despite the networks having raised an average of roughly $250 million each.
The withdrawal comes after Aave’s total platform revenue declined from $198 million in the first quarter to $156 million in the second quarter. The weaker revenue figure does not erase Aave’s large Ethereum business, but it increases pressure to cut deployments that consume operational resources without adding sustainable income.
A lending exit can weaken surrounding infrastructure
The immediate effect of a market closure is typically straightforward: new deposits and borrowing are restricted, supply caps are reduced, and existing positions are given a path toward repayment or migration. The wider consequences can be more complicated for a small chain whose DeFi activity relies heavily on one major lending venue.
Lending protocols provide a core use case for stablecoins and wrapped assets, while their collateral values feed into trading, vaults and liquidity strategies. Active markets also help justify the cost of maintaining price feeds and liquidator networks. When lending demand shrinks, oracle operators, market makers and stablecoin issuers have less commercial reason to maintain services on the network.
Stablecoin support is particularly relevant. A functioning lending market depends on users being able to redeem or exchange stable assets at prices close to their intended value. On chains where stablecoins are largely bridged rather than issued and redeemable natively, a bridge failure can quickly sever that link.
Harmony offered a severe example in 2022. After attackers stole about $100 million from the Horizon bridge in June that year, Aave froze all reserves on the network. Stablecoins on Harmony lost their pegs, price feeds no longer reflected dependable market values, and liquidations became difficult to execute. A later proposal to fund a community bailout was rejected by 99% of Aave token holders, and the network’s lending activity failed to recover.
Fantom experienced a comparable bridge-related shock in 2023, when bridged USDC reportedly fell to about $0.22. Before the hack, 78% of the chain’s market value depended on the affected bridge, according to the material accompanying the comparison. The decline in the token’s value pushed collateralized positions toward insolvency and undermined the asset base needed for lending markets.
Incentives have not produced durable borrowing
Fantom’s successor network, Sonic, attempted to rebuild activity through a $190 million token airdrop and market-making support from Wintermute. Aave, Silo and Euler deployed when the network launched, but much of the activity concentrated in points-driven loops: users supplied an asset, borrowed against it and recycled the proceeds to increase reward eligibility.
Such loops can raise total value locked, or TVL, without generating the varied borrowing demand that supports a durable credit market. Once market-making support ended, Sonic’s TVL fell 98% and its token price dropped below $0.01, according to the supplied figures. Two founders later resigned from the board.
The pattern explains why Aave’s $2 million annual-revenue benchmark is more demanding than a simple TVL target. Deposits can be amplified by leverage, rewards or temporary liquidity programs. Revenue generated from real interest payments provides a more direct indication that users are willing to pay for credit on a network.
Lending activity is concentrating on a few networks
DeFi lending has continued to grow, but its expansion is increasingly concentrated on Ethereum and the largest layer-2 networks. Ethereum and the top three layer-2 chains account for 90% of total DeFi TVL, according to the figures cited in the withdrawal case.
Competing protocols have grown rapidly within that concentrated market. Morpho’s TVL rose from $105 million to more than $8 billion in a year, while Euler increased from $6 million to $300 million over a matter of months. The largest competing lending venue reached $11.5 billion in TVL by July 2026, using isolated lending pools designed to contain losses within individual markets rather than allowing risk to spread across a protocol-wide pool.
Traditional financial firms are beginning to use those deeper pools as well. Société Générale has been cited as the first traditional bank to connect to a DeFi lending protocol, deploying regulated digital cash into isolated markets with more established liquidity.
Aave’s retreat therefore carries a practical warning for users with active positions on the affected networks. As supply caps tighten and new deposits are halted, borrowers may need to repay or move debt, while holders of bridged assets face increasing liquidity and pricing risk if supporting infrastructure leaves alongside the lending market. The planned closures would test whether these chains can sustain independent credit markets or whether their remaining DeFi activity follows liquidity toward networks where oracle coverage, stablecoin support and liquidation capacity can be funded over the long term.
Explore how on-chain credit and sustainable yields intersect in 2026’s DeFi landscape with Toobit’s deep dive on on-chain private credit.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
