Debt ceiling is not just a numerical limit; it is the lifeboat for the entire system.
Recalling the incident during Helio's period when Ankr's vulnerability caused a stir, you can understand why setting a cap for each collateral type is necessary. The problem is simple: if an LST or a specific collateral experiences an infinite minting bug or a direct price collapse, the liquidity pool of the entire lending protocol risks being drained.
Lista's approach is to impose strict limits on each collateral type. This may seem conservative, but essentially it bets on one thing—there will inevitably be bugs in the code. Rather than trusting the code to be flawless, it's better to preemptively install brakes for the worst-case scenario. This design sacrifices some capital efficiency but gains the following: even if one collateral encounters issues, it only causes localized damage, and the entire system remains alive.
For designers, this is trading local rigidity for global survivability—a necessary trade-off. In the DeFi space, which must constantly adapt to new risks, this approach is actually the most pragmatic.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
6
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
StablecoinAnxiety
· 01-07 23:54
Haha, I really remember the Ankr pit. Just one bug caused the entire community to explode... Now I understand why unlimited minting isn't allowed; the cap really saves the day.
View OriginalReply0
PaperHandSister
· 01-07 23:51
Honestly, that time with Ankr really broke my defenses. Now I see that setting the ceiling is just a necessary evil to reduce risk.
View OriginalReply0
SigmaValidator
· 01-07 23:41
Haha, that move by Ankr really taught the entire industry a lesson. Now, looking at Lista's ceiling logic, it's no longer so conservative; it seems more like a compulsory course for those who have made it this far.
View OriginalReply0
AirdropHunterZhang
· 01-07 23:40
Haha, I was also in that Ankr wave, almost wiped out. Now I see that the debt ceiling thing is really a lifesaver.
View OriginalReply0
TokenomicsShaman
· 01-07 23:33
Basically, it's about distrust in the code. Instead of betting on perfection, it's better to install brakes. This is the true essence of DeFi surviving.
View OriginalReply0
WhaleStalker
· 01-07 23:30
Haha, that time with Ankr was really disastrous. The ceiling thing seems conservative but is actually just a brake, betting that the code definitely has bugs.
Debt ceiling is not just a numerical limit; it is the lifeboat for the entire system.
Recalling the incident during Helio's period when Ankr's vulnerability caused a stir, you can understand why setting a cap for each collateral type is necessary. The problem is simple: if an LST or a specific collateral experiences an infinite minting bug or a direct price collapse, the liquidity pool of the entire lending protocol risks being drained.
Lista's approach is to impose strict limits on each collateral type. This may seem conservative, but essentially it bets on one thing—there will inevitably be bugs in the code. Rather than trusting the code to be flawless, it's better to preemptively install brakes for the worst-case scenario. This design sacrifices some capital efficiency but gains the following: even if one collateral encounters issues, it only causes localized damage, and the entire system remains alive.
For designers, this is trading local rigidity for global survivability—a necessary trade-off. In the DeFi space, which must constantly adapt to new risks, this approach is actually the most pragmatic.