Navigating the Risks in DeFi: Why Accountability is Key
Key Takeaways
- DeFi’s explosive growth since 2020 has introduced new financial intermediaries known as “Curators,” who are responsible for handling vast user deposits without regulatory oversight.
- The lack of accountability has led to significant failures, such as the Stream Finance collapse in November 2025, causing losses of $285 million.
- Permissionless infrastructure fosters innovation but also poses challenges in controlling risk management due to the absence of identity disclosures and capital requirements.
- Addressing these issues requires technical reforms, including mandatory identity disclosure, capital requirements, and reserve proofs to ensure long-term sustainability in the DeFi ecosystem.
Understanding the New DeFi Intermediary: Curators
In recent years, DeFi platforms have introduced a novel class of intermediaries, often called Risk Curators, Treasury Managers, or Strategy Operators. While managing billions in user deposits, protocols such as Morpho and Euler have thrived with eye-catching yields. However, these intermediaries often operate without licenses, regulatory scrutiny, or even identity disclosure, posing significant risks to the ecosystem.
The Curator model’s vulnerability became starkly apparent with the collapse of Stream Finance in November 2025, which led to a massive $285 million loss. This incident highlights the systemic issues in DeFi wherein curators, such as TelosC, Elixir, and others, recklessly concentrated user funds, often using excessive leverage with insufficient real collateral.
Stream Finance: The Buckling of Permissionless Architecture
Morpho and Euler’s frameworks allow anyone to establish vaults and manage deposits without stringent regulatory barriers, leading to rapid innovation and efficiency. However, the very traits that enable innovation also create inherent risks. Without effective gatekeeping or accountability, risk managers can mishandle funds without consequence, essentially turning the system into “free gambling,” as coined by Ernesto Boado of BGD Labs.
When incentives favor asset accumulation and high yields over risk mitigation—without regulators to oversee—users are left to bear significant losses. As seen in the 2025 debacle, Stream Finance’s competitive dynamics encouraged unsustainable, risk-heavy strategies masked as lucrative opportunities, with disastrous results for uninformed investors.
The RE7 Labs Example: Conflicts of Interest Exposed
RE7 Labs’ approach offers a cautionary tale of how conflicts of interest can spur inevitable crises in DeFi. While earning substantial fees for assets under management, these actors are motivated to boost deposits and returns, often sidelining the interests of safety-seeking users. Despite prior identification of the centralized counterparty risk involved with Stream, RE7 Labs pursued the xUSD integration due to “significant demand,” underscoring the primacy of fee income over prudent risk evaluation.
Similarly, Risk Planners profit from returns but evade liability during downturns, creating a “heads I win, tails you lose” scenario that harms users. Such conflicts necessitate an urgent reevaluation of incentives and responsibilities across DeFi protocols.
The Void of Accountability in DeFi
Unlike traditional finance, which mandates accountability through regulatory scrutiny and civil liabilities, DeFi often results in rug pulls or catastrophic losses without significant consequences for the perpetrators. Without legal obligations or traceable identities, those responsible for financial disasters can easily rebrand and continue operating under new aliases—potentially repeating past failures.
For instance, the fallout from a Morpho incident in March 2024 demonstrated how the system’s pervasive lack of accountability left victims uncompensated, as all parties shirked responsibility. This structural ambiguity invites moral hazards, heightening the risks users unknowingly assume.
Addressing the Accountability Challenge: Proposals for Reform
To cement DeFi’s place as a sustainable alternative to traditional finance, reforms are necessary to introduce accountability without stifling innovation. Proposed measures include:
- Identity Disclosure: Major Risk Planners should reveal true identities to facilitate accountability in instances of fraud or negligence, similar to transparency standards in traditional finance.
- Capital Requirement: Planners must maintain risk capital to offset potential user losses, thereby aligning incentives with prudent risk management.
- Strategy Disclosure: Full transparency regarding strategies, leverage, counterparty risk, and risk parameters is crucial, enabling users to make informed decisions.
- Reserve Proof Requirement: Verification technologies like Merkle trees and zero-knowledge proofs should be mandated to prevent scenarios akin to Stream Finance’s deceptive off-chain positions.
- Concentration Limits: Protocols need strict regulations to limit exposure to a single counterparty, mitigating the risk of large-scale losses from those entities failing.
By establishing such mechanisms, DeFi can emulate the advantageous aspects of traditional finance while avoiding its historical pitfalls. Only by imposing meaningful accountability can decentralized systems safeguard users against the recurring crises that have plagued them without shunning their core innovative traits.
FAQs
What are Risk Curators in DeFi?
Risk Curators in DeFi are intermediaries who manage substantial user deposits across various protocols. They focus on setting risk parameters and deploying funds into yield strategies without traditional regulatory oversight.
Why did Stream Finance collapse in 2025?
Stream Finance’s collapse was due to extreme leveraging of user funds with inadequate real collateral, leading to unsustainable financial practices. Warnings were ignored due to the incentives that prioritize asset growth over sound risk management.
How does the permissionless architecture of DeFi contribute to risks?
While it enables innovation by removing entry barriers, the permissionless architecture lacks gatekeeping, allowing anyone to become a risk manager without accountability, resulting in increased chances of failure.
What measures can be implemented for DeFi accountability?
Proposed measures include mandatory identity disclosures, setting capital requirements, requiring reserve proof, enforcing strategy disclosures, and limiting exposure to single counterparties.
Why is there an accountability void in DeFi?
The absence of clear regulatory oversight and legal liabilities means individuals can manage and potentially misuse massive funds without facing significant consequences, leading to a repetitive cycle of failures.
You may also like
Gainers
Latest Crypto News
Alpha Arena 1.5 Season Update: Grok 4.20 Dominates the Competition, Musk Praises His Trading Skills
Data: Euro Stablecoin Market Cap Doubled in the Past Year, Reaching Approximately $683 Million
Issue 1: Coin issuance based on a tweet is a community-driven activity, and users should be aware of investment risks
Caixin: 3,032 People Prosecuted for "Virtual Currency" Money Laundering Crimes in 2024
Next Week Outlook: Fed Rate Cut a 'Done Deal', Hawk-Dove Debate in the Spotlight
Customer Support:@weikecs
Business Cooperation:@weikecs
Quant Trading & MM:bd@weex.com
VIP Services:support@weex.com