There is an interesting phenomenon in lending protocols—some platforms can maintain extremely low lending rates (below 2%) over the long term, while most general lending protocols simply cannot. What is the logic behind this?

The key difference lies in one word: integration. General lending protocols are essentially intermediaries, borrowing money from A to lend to B, and must pay interest to A. This creates a hard constraint—the borrowing cost cannot be lower than the deposit cost.

Platforms that control the underlying liquidity staking protocols are different. They directly capture the node rewards generated by collateral like BNB. Even more cleverly, assets like lisUSD that are lent out are liabilities minted by the protocol itself, so there’s no need to pay interest to the capital providers.

As a result, the protocol can use the profits from underlying staking to "subsidize" the upper-layer lending. Simply put: profit from staking is used to offset the cost of lending. This structural advantage, which a pure matching platform cannot replicate mathematically, is fundamental.

From full-stack architecture to cost control, this design is not just a product iteration but a difference at the level of business models.