Fintech

Inside the wild world of DeFi, where 'bribes' rule and protocols fight for dominance

Curve is the biggest source of liquidity for many cryptocurrencies. Does that make DeFi less decentralized — and riskier — than people think?

Pyramid of DeFi protocols

“If everybody is using Curve as their base layer for stable swaps, and something happens to Curve, everything built on top of it also collapses, right?”

Illustration: Christopher T. Fong/Protocol

Curve, one of the lesser-known players outside of the crypto market, holds an outsized influence in the industry and operates through a wild-seeming system of “bribes” where new DeFi protocols compete to become the next big token.

Where Wall Street has its market makers and banks, cryptocurrency has services like Curve that provide liquidity for tokens. It’s an essential part of any financial market.

Unlike its traditional-finance predecessors, Curve is decentralized and ostensibly overseen by holders of governance tokens, a specific kind of cryptocurrency analogous to shares in a company. Those holders can be swayed with monetary incentives, which is how pay-per-vote bribes have become an accepted part of using Curve. There’s an entire bribe industry that has cropped up around Curve.

Understanding the financial politics of Curve bribes in turn gives insight into the stablecoin market, a part of crypto that has drawn increasing scrutiny of late. Curve is a key player that new tokens rely on for growth but is also central to stable swaps — trading pairs of stablecoins that account for a large swath of crypto trading. This creates a systemic risk, some analysts believe.

The bribe economy

“If everybody is using Curve as their base layer for stable swaps, and something happens to Curve, everything built on top of it also collapses, right?” said Austin Campbell, director of Growth, Cash and DeFi partnerships at Paxos.

Terra’s UST and staked ether, or stETH, have had liquidity problems with major reverberations throughout the industry — with Curve playing a major role in both. Because many protocols rely on Curve, any problems could have a domino effect on the market.

Curve is critical to DeFi and the broader crypto industry because new crypto tokens depend on Curve liquidity. Curve is a decentralized exchange like Uniswap, operating on the blockchain and overseen by a DAO. Curve specializes in stablecoins or other tokens of equal value, and has a highly touted algorithm that limits slippage, or trading losses. This is particularly important for stablecoins because traders want very little deviation from the $1 price.

Curve’s prowess in fighting slippage has made its liquidity pools very popular. It’s the largest decentralized exchange by total value locked, or deposited, even during the crypto winter, according to DefiLlama.

In addition to low slippage, Curve distributes CRV tokens as a reward to people who provide liquidity on Curve. Those who stake their CRV tokens get vote-escrowed CRV, or veCRV, tokens, which enable people to vote on where Curve allocates its CRV rewards.

Crypto protocols want to steer rewards to their own token’s Curve liquidity pools. If those pools have high rewards, more people will participate in those pools and fuel growth.

One successful Curve Wars protocol is Convex, which started offering its own CVX token to CRV holders in exchange for letting Convex decide where to allocate Curve votes. With this strategy, Convex became the largest Curve holder, claiming about 55% of Curve’s voting power.

That has all led to a multilayered “bribe” economy, where new protocols furiously compete to bribe Convex holders to vote for their protocols, in turn controlling the Curve voting. It’s a Russian doll of crypto governance.

The bribe economy is active. New protocols like Redacted Cartel, Fantom, Cream Finance and Abracadabra have offered various incentives for voting or staking their CRV or CVX tokens.

Terra gets thrown a Curve

The power of Curve was on display in the recent UST depeg and subsequent implosion. One of the first sparks that started the depegging of UST was the draining of the UST-3pool on Curve, which includes UST, DAI, USDC and USDT, according to an analysis by Nansen. Before the depegging, the pool had about $1.2 billion in liquidity.

From May 7 to 8, the top 18 wallets accounted for $751 million, or 77% of total inflows of UST into the Curve pool. In other words, those wallets were selling UST for USDC or other coins, according to Nansen.

When liquidity in the Curve pool started to dry up — that is, there was no USDC, DAI or USDT left to trade for those seeking to sell UST — the price started to drop below $1 and traders began arbitraging between the Curve pool and other exchanges, starting the spiral downward.

Could the liquidity problems facing Terra happen to others in crypto? The 3pool on Curve, a major liquidity pool that many crypto applications and traders rely on, holds about $665 million USDT, $185 million USDC and $183 million DAI.

“You saw what just happened with UST: When that happens, the pool becomes almost entirely UST and all the other coins get depleted. Or imagine that happening with 3Pool on Curve, which everything else is built off of,” Campbell said.

But draining 3pool is possible, he said.

Circle’s USDC and MakerDAO’s DAI stablecoins have maintained their stability throughout the UST collapse. But USDT, also known as Tether, has lost its peg recently. “If I were Circle or DAI, I would be very concerned about Tether being in that pool,” Campbell said.

Circle declined to comment beyond citing a statement from last week noting that USDC is backed by U.S. Treasuries and cash, and that “USDC is always redeemable 1 for 1 for US dollars.”

Some investors and analysts believe that Curve itself as an automated service isn’t the problem — it’s more how each cryptocurrency involved is designed.

“I don't see this analogous collapse happening unless someone creates another [stablecoin] that's very similar in nature” to UST, said Anand Iyer, founder at Canonical Crypto.

The “bribe” term may sound ugly to outsiders. But the crypto community has subversively embraced them as a way of tweaking a traditional finance system they view as rigged and rebuilding it in a more transparent fashion. The backers of new cryptocurrencies rely on this complex system of financial incentives to break through the noise to build successful token projects.

The tools that underlie them are also complex, decentralized and unregulated, adding risk along the way. Curve, though ostensibly decentralized, has become a single point of failure with little backup, as the UST episode showed. When stresses hit the crypto ecosystem, the brittleness of a system that’s decentralized in name but centralized in practice suddenly comes to light.

Enterprise

US issues sweeping new rules on chip-tech exports to China

The Biden administration rolled out new, wide-ranging export controls on the chips and equipment U.S. companies are able to sell to China.

The Biden administration’s new controls on chip exports represent a significant shift in U.S. policy related to China.

Photo: Chen Zhonghao/Xinhua via Getty Images

The U.S. unveiled a set of new regulations Friday that aim to choke off China’s access to advanced chips, the tools necessary to manufacture years-old designs, and the service and support mechanisms needed to keep chip fabrication systems running smoothly.

On a briefing call with reporters Thursday, administration officials said the goal is to block the People’s Liberation Army and China’s domestic surveillance apparatus from gaining access to advanced computing capabilities that require the use of advanced semiconductors. The chips, tools, and software are helping China’s military, including aiding the development of weapons of mass destruction, according to the officials, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss the administration’s policies freely.

Keep Reading Show less
Max A. Cherney

Max A. Cherney is a senior reporter at Protocol covering the semiconductor industry. He has worked for Barron's magazine as a Technology Reporter, and its sister site MarketWatch. He is based in San Francisco.

Sponsored Content

Great products are built on strong patents

Experts say robust intellectual property protection is essential to ensure the long-term R&D required to innovate and maintain America's technology leadership.

Every great tech product that you rely on each day, from the smartphone in your pocket to your music streaming service and navigational system in the car, shares one important thing: part of its innovative design is protected by intellectual property (IP) laws.

From 5G to artificial intelligence, IP protection offers a powerful incentive for researchers to create ground-breaking products, and governmental leaders say its protection is an essential part of maintaining US technology leadership. To quote Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo: "intellectual property protection is vital for American innovation and entrepreneurship.”

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.
Enterprise

Why CrowdStrike wants to be a broader enterprise IT player

The company, which grew from $1 billion in annual recurring revenue to $2 billion in just 18 months, is expanding deeper within the cybersecurity market and into the wider IT space as well.

CrowdStrike is well positioned at a time when CISOs are fed up with going to dozens of different vendors to meet their security needs.

Image: Protocol

CrowdStrike is finding massive traction in areas outside its core endpoint security products, setting up the company to become a major player in other key security segments such as identity protection as well as in IT categories beyond cybersecurity.

Already one of the biggest names in cybersecurity for the past decade, CrowdStrike now aspires to become a more important player in areas within the wider IT landscape such as data observability and IT operations, CrowdStrike co-founder and CEO George Kurtz told Protocol in a recent interview.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Fintech

Election markets are far from a sure bet

Kalshi has big-name backing for its plan to offer futures contracts tied to election results. Will that win over a long-skeptical regulator?

Whether Kalshi’s election contracts could be considered gaming or whether they serve a true risk-hedging purpose is one of the top questions the CFTC is weighing in its review.

Photo illustration: Getty Images; Protocol

Crypto isn’t the only emerging issue on the CFTC’s plate. The futures regulator is also weighing a fintech sector that has similarly tricky political implications: election bets.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission has set Oct. 28 as a date by which it hopes to decide whether the New York-based startup Kalshi can offer a form of wagering up to $25,000 on which party will control the House of Representatives and Senate after the midterms. PredictIt, another online market for election trading, has also sued the regulator over its decision to cancel a no-action letter.

Keep Reading Show less
Ryan Deffenbaugh
Ryan Deffenbaugh is a reporter at Protocol focused on fintech. Before joining Protocol, he reported on New York's technology industry for Crain's New York Business. He is based in New York and can be reached at rdeffenbaugh@protocol.com.
Enterprise

The Uber verdict shows why mandatory disclosure isn't such a bad idea

The conviction of Uber's former chief security officer, Joe Sullivan, seems likely to change some minds in the debate over proposed cyber incident reporting regulations.

Executives and boards will now be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up," said one information security veteran.

Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

If nothing else, the guilty verdict delivered Wednesday in a case involving Uber's former security head will have this effect on how breaches are handled in the future: Executives and boards, according to information security veteran Michael Hamilton, will be "a whole lot less likely to cover things up."

Following the conviction of former Uber chief security officer Joe Sullivan, "we likely will get better voluntary reporting" of cyber incidents, said Hamilton, formerly the chief information security officer of the City of Seattle, and currently the founder and CISO at cybersecurity vendor Critical Insight.

Keep Reading Show less
Kyle Alspach

Kyle Alspach ( @KyleAlspach) is a senior reporter at Protocol, focused on cybersecurity. He has covered the tech industry since 2010 for outlets including VentureBeat, CRN and the Boston Globe. He lives in Portland, Oregon, and can be reached at kalspach@protocol.com.

Latest Stories
Bulletins