skip to main content
10.1145/3487552.3487811acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesimcConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

An empirical study of DeFi liquidations: incentives, risks, and instabilities

Published:02 November 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Financial speculators often seek to increase their potential gains with leverage. Debt is a popular form of leverage, and with over 39.88B USD of total value locked (TVL), the Decentralized Finance (DeFi) lending markets are thriving. Debts, however, entail the risks of liquidation, the process of selling the debt collateral at a discount to liquidators. Nevertheless, few quantitative insights are known about the existing liquidation mechanisms.

In this paper, to the best of our knowledge, we are the first to study the breadth of the borrowing and lending markets of the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem. We focus on Aave, Compound, MakerDAO, and dYdX, which collectively represent over 85% of the lending market on Ethereum. Given extensive liquidation data measurements and insights, we systematize the prevalent liquidation mechanisms and are the first to provide a methodology to compare them objectively. We find that the existing liquidation designs well incentivize liquidators but sell excessive amounts of discounted collateral at the borrowers' expenses. We measure various risks that liquidation participants are exposed to and quantify the instabilities of existing lending protocols. Moreover, we propose an optimal strategy that allows liquidators to increase their liquidation profit, which may aggravate the loss of borrowers.

References

  1. 2020. The Market Collapse of March 12-13, 2020: How It Impacted MakerDAO. https://blog.makerdao.com/the-market-collapse-of-march-12-2020-how-it-impacted-makerdao/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2020. Oracle Exploit Sees $89 Million Liquidated on Compound - Decrypt. https://decrypt.co/49657/oracle-exploit-sees-100-million-liquidated-on-compound.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2021. Over $117M in Loans via DeFi Platforms Compound, Maker Liquidated on Feb 22, Marking Largest Liquidations in Market History: Report. https://www.crowdfundinsider.com/2021/02/172687-over-117m-in-loans-via-defi-platforms-compound-maker-liquidated-on-feb-22-marking-largest-liquidations-in-market-history-report/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Aave. 2020. Aave Protocol. https://github.com/aave/aave-protocol.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Michael J Alderson and Brian L Betker. 1995. Liquidation costs and capital structure. Journal of Financial Economics 39, 1 (1995), 45--69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Sarah Allen, Srdjan Čapkun, Ittay Eyal, Giulia Fanti, Bryan A Ford, James Grimmelmann, Ari Juels, Kari Kostiainen, Sarah Meiklejohn, Andrew Miller, et al. 2020. Design Choices for Central Bank Digital Currency: Policy and Technical Considerations. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Robert Almgren and Neil Chriss. 1999. Value under liquidation. Risk 12, 12 (1999), 61--63.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Nicola Atzei, Massimo Bartoletti, and Tiziana Cimoli. 2017. A survey of attacks on ethereum smart contracts (sok). In International conference on principles of security and trust. Springer, 164--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lawrence M Ausubel, Paul Milgrom, et al. 2006. The lovely but lonely Vickrey auction. Combinatorial auctions 17 (2006), 22--26.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Shehar Bano, Alberto Sonnino, Mustafa Al-Bassam, Sarah Azouvi, Patrick McCorry, Sarah Meiklejohn, and George Danezis. 2019. SoK: Consensus in the age of blockchains. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. 183--198.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Joseph Bonneau, Andrew Miller, Jeremy Clark, Arvind Narayanan, Joshua A Kroll, and Edward W Felten. 2015. Sok: Research perspectives and challenges for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2015 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 104--121.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Jeremy Clark, Didem Demirag, and Seyedehmahsa Moosavi. 2020. Demystifying Stablecoins: Cryptography meets monetary policy. Queue 18, 1 (2020), 39--60.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, and Ari Juels. 2019. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering, and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.05234 (2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Chris Dannen. 2017. Introducing Ethereum and solidity. Vol. 318. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michael Darlin, Nikolaos Papadis, and Leandros Tassiulas. 2020. Optimal Bidding Strategy for Maker Auctions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.07086 (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. DragonFly Research. 2020. Liquidators: The Secret Whales Helping DeFi Function. https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/liquidators-the-secret-whales-helping-defi-function-acf132fbea5eGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. dYdX. 2020. dYdX. https://dydx.exchange/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Shayan Eskandari, Seyedehmahsa Moosavi, and Jeremy Clark. 2019. Sok: Transparent dishonesty: front-running attacks on blockchain. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 170--189.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Compound Finance. 2019. Compound Finance. https://compound.finance/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. The Maker Foundation. 2019. MakerDAO. https://makerdao.com/en/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Dominik Harz, Lewis Gudgeon, Arthur Gervais, and William J Knottenbelt. 2019. Balance: Dynamic adjustment of cryptocurrency deposits.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Joe Horlen, Neil Eldin, and Yashambari Ajinkya. 2005. Reverse auctions: Controversial bidding practice. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice 131, 1 (2005), 76--81.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Hsien-Tang Kao, Tarun Chitra, Rei Chiang, and John Morrow. 2020. An analysis of the market risk to participants in the compound protocol. In Third International Symposium on Foundations and Applications of Blockchains.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Vijay Krishna. 2009. Auction theory. Academic press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Amani Moin, Kevin Sekniqi, and Emin Gun Sirer. 2020. SoK: A classification framework for stablecoin designs. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 174--197.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Daniel Perez, Sam M Werner, Jiahua Xu, and Benjamin Livshits. 2021. Liquidations: DeFi on a Knife-edge. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Yaroslav Afonin, Ludovico Lazzaretti, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. CeFi vs. DeFi-Comparing Centralized to Decentralized Finance. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.08157 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. Quantifying Blockchain Extractable Value: How dark is the forest? arXiv preprint arXiv:2101.05511 (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Benjamin Livshits, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. Attacking the DeFi Ecosystem with Flash Loans for Fun and Profit. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Carmen M Reinhart and M Belen Sbrancia. 2011. The liquidation of government debt. Technical Report. National Bureau of Economic Research.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Andrei Shleifer and Robert W Vishny. 1992. Liquidation values and debt capacity: A market equilibrium approach. The Journal of Finance 47, 4 (1992), 1343--1366.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Sergey Nazarov Steve Ellis, Ari Juels. 2017. Chainlink: A decentralized oracle network.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Sheridan Titman. 1984. The effect of capital structure on a firm's liquidation decision. Journal of financial economics 13, 1 (1984), 137--151.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Uniswap.io. 2018. accessed 12 November, 2019, https://docs.uniswap.io/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Gavin Wood et al. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum project yellow paper 151, 2014 (2014), 1--32.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. ZenGo. 2019. ZenGo - Understanding Compound's Liquidation. https://zengo.com/wp-content/uploads/Understanding-Compound%E2%80%98s-Liquidation-3.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Liyi Zhou, Kaihua Qin, Antoine Cully, Benjamin Livshits, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. On the Just-In-Time Discovery of Profit-Generating Transactions in DeFi Protocols. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Liyi Zhou, Kaihua Qin, Christof Ferreira Torres, Duc V Le, and Arthur Gervais. 2021. High-Frequency Trading on Decentralized On-Chain Exchanges. In 2021 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP). IEEE.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An empirical study of DeFi liquidations: incentives, risks, and instabilities

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          IMC '21: Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference
          November 2021
          768 pages
          ISBN:9781450391290
          DOI:10.1145/3487552

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 November 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate277of1,083submissions,26%

          Upcoming Conference

          IMC '24
          ACM Internet Measurement Conference
          November 4 - 6, 2024
          Madrid , AA , Spain

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader