Existing DeFi vaults fall short where it matters most | Opinion

2025/07/21 18:48

Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

DeFi vaults were supposed to change everything. For a while, it felt like they had. With just a few clicks, users can deposit their crypto and have it routed through complex, automated strategies. No banks, no managers, no waiting around, just smart contracts doing all the work. But the reality is, the vault model hasn’t lived up to the hype.

The main idea still makes sense. Automating execution through code removed a big piece of the old system’s baggage. There is no need to trust someone to hold your funds or make the right trade. That alone is a huge step forward. But DeFi didn’t just need new rails. It needed better coordination. It needed a way to actually connect people with skill, capital, and insight. That part never fully came together.

The current vault model hasn’t been enough to push DeFi beyond its niche. For DeFi to reach the mainstream, we need stronger coordination, better risk management, transparency, and trust.

No way to know who you’re trusting

Ironically, even though vaults removed the need to trust someone with your money, they created a new kind of trust issue. You’re still relying on whoever created the strategy. The problem is, you rarely know who that is.

Most vaults don’t verify managers. Managers are the people or teams who design and run the trading strategies inside a vault. They decide how your money gets invested, but in most DeFi platforms, you don’t know who they are, what their track record is, or if they’re any good.

Most vaults don’t offer any records for managers. There’s no reputation system, no skill validation, no real-world identity tied to the person behind the trades. That’s fine if you’re just experimenting with a few bucks. But if you’re allocating real capital, it starts to feel more like a gamble than an investment.

Discovery and risk management are a mess

Even if you wanted to invest in vaults, how would you choose? Most platforms offer little to no curation. There’s no personalization, no ranking system, no way to follow proven strategies or surface the best-performing ones. It’s like being dropped into a crowded market without signs, labels, or recommendations. You’re left to wander and hope you stumble across something good.

For users, that’s frustrating. For vault creators, it’s limiting. It creates a system where great strategies might never get noticed, and users default to whatever’s trending, not what’s right for their goals.

To draw lessons from the past, the history of financial risk control is a long and evolving one. It reflects decades of change in financial systems, improvements in technology, and a deeper understanding of what risk actually is. The crypto and DeFi space, while still in its early stages, is clearly following a similar path.

The problem is, most DeFi vaults haven’t caught up. There’s often no framework for basic risk management, no position caps, no delayed disclosures, no protections against market manipulation or forced liquidations. Vaults may automate execution, but they leave everything else up to chance.

The history of financial risk control is a story of learning from mistakes, getting smarter with numbers, and trying to build a more stable and less scary “money game” for everyone. It’s a constant effort to avoid the next big “uh oh” moment.

Until DeFi takes that lesson seriously, vaults will continue to leave users exposed. Risk isn’t just about protecting capital. It’s about creating systems people can trust, even when markets turn.

Too much transparency can hurt performance

At first, exposing strategy logic and on-chain activity seemed like a win. Users can see exactly what is happening with their money, down to the trade. But here’s the catch. Serious traders rely on discretion. They don’t want their every move copied or front-run. When strategies are fully public in real time, the edge disappears.

For any trader managing meaningful capital, this is a non-starter. It’s like trying to win a race where everyone sees your blueprint. No wonder many of the best operators have stayed out of DeFi vaults. They have no way to protect their edge.

Final thoughts

These issues all come back to one big theme: DeFi vaults focused too much on execution and not enough on coordination. They removed the middlemen but never replaced the things that actually help people make smart investing decisions. Things like verified skill, smart discovery tools, and protection for high-conviction strategies.

What DeFi needs next isn’t just more automation. It needs better alignment between retail investors and vault managers. It needs infrastructure that helps you find the right strategies, see who’s behind them, and invest with confidence. It should feel more like discovering a top creator on YouTube than guessing which anonymous wallet might perform this week.

We’ve seen what’s possible when smart contracts run the backend. Now it’s time to fix the front end, the human part. Vaults were a strong first step. But if we want DeFi investing to be useful, scalable, and trustworthy, it’s time to think bigger. Not just faster contracts, but smarter coordination.

Hong Yea
Hong Yea

Hong Yea is the co-founder and CEO at GRVT. Hong had been a trader for a decade at Credit Suisse and Goldman Sachs, respectively, prior to co-founding GRVT in May 2022, weeks before the crypto market crash. The GRVT team aims to revolutionize financial markets by integrating blockchain technology and self-custody solutions into both TradFi and DeFi. By applying blockchain settlement and trustless risk management to centralized order book infrastructure, GRVT is transforming trading and investment while upholding traditional security controls. Hong believes this approach, starting with crypto markets, can reshape the entire financial landscape. With an international upbringing in Malaysia and Poland, followed by studying business management at Yonsei University in Korea, Hong leverages his diverse international background and strategic acumen to drive GRVT’s mission forward.

Disclaimer: The articles reposted on this site are sourced from public platforms and are provided for informational purposes only. They do not necessarily reflect the views of MEXC. All rights remain with the original authors. If you believe any content infringes on third-party rights, please contact service@mexc.com for removal. MEXC makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the content and is not responsible for any actions taken based on the information provided. The content does not constitute financial, legal, or other professional advice, nor should it be considered a recommendation or endorsement by MEXC.

You May Also Like

$3.4B in Ethereum Gone Forever – 912K ETH Lost to Irreversible Errors

$3.4B in Ethereum Gone Forever – 912K ETH Lost to Irreversible Errors

Key Takeaways: 912,296.82 ETH tokens are permanently inaccessible, according to public blockchain records. BlackRock’s ETHA led ETF inflows, bringing total U.S. Ethereum ETF inflows to $5.5B. Ethereum’s self-custody model offers no built-in recovery for user-side errors. A recent GitHub post published by Coinbase Head of Product Conor Grogan has documented over 912,000 ETH that have been permanently lost due to user error or protocol failures, representing more than 0.76% of Ethereum’s circulating supply. Grogan compiled wallet addresses from public records, contract audits, and community-sourced data. The analysis excludes unknown lost-key events, covering only ETH that is provably inaccessible. A Total of 912,296.82 ETH Lost “To be clear, this $3.4B+ number significantly undershoots the actual lost/inaccessible ETH amount,” Grogan wrote. “It just covers instances where Ethereum is locked forever.” “For example, it doesn’t cover all lost private keys or things like Genesis wallets that have been forgotten,” said Grogan. Based on my research, a minimum of 913,111 Ethereum is lost forever due to user error. This is 0.76%+ of ETH supply, or $3.43 billion in lost funds If we include EIP‑1559 burned ETH (5.3M), then >5% of all ETH ever made ($23.42B) have been permanently destroyed pic.twitter.com/IlTduN7Kzx — Conor (@jconorgrogan) July 20, 2025 Major losses include 306,000 ETH trapped in a Parity multisig contract once used by the Web3 Foundation, 60,000 ETH from the failed QuadrigaCX exchange, and 11,500 ETH lost by the Akutars NFT project due to a contract error. Grogan also identified 25,000 ETH manually sent to a known burn address. The dataset incorporates findings from researcher Johannes, who documented over 12,000 ETH lost due to wallet typos, and credits contributions from Tayvano and J6sp5r. Grogan said future updates will expand the dataset to cover situations such as North Korean losses and cases involving unrecoverable private keys. Ethereum ETFs Grow with Record Inflows Ethereum ETFs have drawn over $5.5 billion in total inflows, with $3.3 billion added since mid-April. The renewed demand follows a rise in Ethereum basis yield and stronger futures activity. BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum Trust (ETHA) led with $489 million in inflows on July 17, its highest on record. ETHA brought in $1.25 billion across five sessions, raising BlackRock’s ETH ETF holdings to $6.94 billion. U.S. Ethereum ETFs collectively saw $726.74 million in daily inflows on July 17, beating the previous record. Fidelity’s FETH and Grayscale’s mini trust added $113.31 million and $54.18 million, respectively. The persistence of lost Ethereum indicates the protocol’s strict finality and lack of recourse for user-side errors. Unlike traditional financial systems that offer chargebacks or custodial recovery, Ethereum’s self-custody model makes asset recovery functionally impossible once certain errors occur. Institutional exposure now grows through vehicles like ETFs, making user education and wallet safety increasingly relevant. Preventing future losses will likely depend more on improved tooling and standards than changes to the protocol itself. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Can lost ETH ever be recovered through upgrades or forks? No. Ethereum’s consensus design does not allow selective access changes without a hard fork, which would require broad network coordination and is highly unlikely. Could other chains implement loss-recovery tools without compromising decentralization? Some newer chains experiment with programmable recovery functions or guardian models, but these involve tradeoffs in user control and system trust assumptions. How is ETH loss accounted for in monetary policy models or supply tracking? Lost ETH is not officially removed from circulating supply metrics, but is often considered when estimating effective supply and scarcity. Do ETFs holding ETH face specific technical risks from these loss patterns? While ETFs use custodians to minimize risk, operational security failures in staking, slashing, or private key management could still create large-scale losses.
Share
CryptoNews2025/07/22 01:03