Ranked & Reviewed · 9 services
Best Crypto Lending Platforms
Nine on-chain crypto lending platforms, scored on fee disclosure, code licence, liquidation terms, governance timelocks and audit disclosure, from primary sources checked for November 2026.
At a glance
| # | Service | Score | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Morpho | 8.8 | Open-source code and liquidation terms fixed by formula |
| 2 |  Venus Protocol | 7.6 | Dated audit catalog and timelocks stated to the hour |
| 3 |  Kamino | 7.2 | Publishes its fee spread per market and states no other fees |
| 4 |  Euler | 7.0 | Dated, linked audit record and fee limits enforced in code |
| 5 |  Aave | 6.6 | Deep, dated audit archive and documented governance delays |
| 6 |  Spark | 6.2 | Publishes the health factor at which full liquidation applies |
| 7 |  Silo Finance | 6.0 | Liquidation fee fixed for each market's lifetime |
| 8 |  Compound | 5.6 | One documented timelock over every Compound III market |
| 9 |  Fluid | 5.0 | Audited core: seven reports from four named firms |
Best Crypto Lending Platforms, ranked by score
Morpho scores 8.8/10 in lending on desk research of its docs and code, checked November 1, 2026. It pairs a GPL licence with published, unchangeable liquidation terms and 34 dated audits, but states no timelock on governance and no live protocol fee figures.
Pros
- morpho-blue is licensed under GPL-2.0, the only licence marked 10 in this ranking
- Nine permitted LLTVs published exactly, fixed for the life of each market
- Liquidation incentive capped at 1.15 by a published formula, with no protocol fee
- 34 dated audit reports from 13 named firms, the newest from September 2026
- Governance powers listed; a named 5-of-9 multisig executes Snapshot votes
Cons
- No timelock is stated for governance actions such as switching on the fee
- Whether the 25% fee switch is active in any market is not stated
- The Blue core contracts have three audit reports, all from 2023
Venus Protocol scores 7.6/10 in lending on desk research of its v4 docs and code, checked November 1, 2026. It links 115 dated audits and states each governance timelock, but gives liquidation figures only as examples and does not publish reserve factors.
Pros
- 115 linked audit reports from 12 named firms, nearly all dated, through October 2026
- Timelocks stated per route: 48 hours normal, 6 hours fast-track, 1 hour critical
- Critical route stripped of all permissions by VIP-645
- BSD 3-Clause licence on the core protocol repository
- Revenue split published: 40% treasury, 40% Prime, 20% risk fund
Cons
- Liquidation figures in the docs are labelled assumptions, not live parameters
- Reserve factors and per-market collateral factors are not published
- Risk stewards can move liquidation thresholds by up to 10% without a timelock
Kamino scores 7.2/10 in lending on desk research of its docs and code, checked November 1, 2026. It publishes its protocol spread per market and its 20% close factor, but its lending code is under BUSL-1.1 until 2027 and its main market's timelock is 12 hours.
Pros
- Protocol spread published per asset and market: 11% to 20% of borrower interest
- Fee page states there are no deposit, withdrawal or origination fees
- Close factor stated as 20% of debt per liquidation, 100% above typically 95% LTV
- 18 dated audits from five named firms, plus four formal verifications
- Main-market changes go through a Squads v4 multisig and a 12-hour timelock
Cons
- Lending code under BUSL-1.1 with no production-use grant until November 17, 2027
- Per-reserve liquidation thresholds and bonus ranges are given only as examples
- Satellite-market timelocks and program upgrade authority are not stated
- No protocol-level insurance fund; lenders in a reserve absorb bad debt
Euler scores 7.0 among lending protocols, led by a 10 for a dated audit record and an 8 for fee disclosure, with protocol fees at 0% since April 2026. Liquidation and governance terms vary by vault, and its licence stays restricted until 2029. Re-scored from 6.8 on desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Audit disclosure 10: review table dated from October 2023 to July 2026, with firm, scope and link per row
- Protocol fees set to 0% on live and future deployments since April 2026
- Interest fee bound to a 10%-100% range and protocol share capped at 50% in code
- Cantina bug bounty of up to $7.5 million and a SEAL Safe Harbor agreement published
Cons
- Licence 4: vault kit under BUSL-1.1 with no use grant until April 24, 2029
- Liquidation LTVs, maximum discount and cool-off are set per vault; the maximum defaults to 0
- The 1-day timelock governor suite is recommended, not required, and some vaults have no governor
- Some reviews, including a 2024 Certora formal verification, are not publicly available
Aave scores 6.6 among lending protocols, fifth of nine, on full marks for audit disclosure and a 9 for governance. Per-asset fees and liquidation values are not published in its docs, and its v3.7 code is source-available until 2027, per desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Audit disclosure 10: 49 dated reports since 2021, six from different firms covering v3.7 in March 2026
- Governance 9: 1-day and 7-day timelocks, with guardian multisig thresholds stated
- Risk Steward limited to 0.5-point changes per update, at least 72 hours apart
- Liquidation bonus rule documented: always above 100%, so 105% means a 5% bonus
Cons
- Fee disclosure 4: reserve factor, liquidation fee and flash-loan premium described as parameters, not figures
- Licence 4: BUSL-1.1 on v3.7, by its own text not open source, until March 6, 2027
- Per-asset liquidation thresholds and bonuses are not published in the documentation
- Most parameter changes can take effect one day after a vote passes
Spark scores 6.2/10 in lending on desk research of its docs and code, checked November 1, 2026. SparkLend publishes its close-factor rule and some thresholds in numbers, but most reserve factors, any execution delay and dated audit reports are missing.
Pros
- Close factor published: 50% above a 0.95 health factor, 100% at or below it
- Some thresholds published: WBTC 78%, ETH E-Mode 93%, frozen LRTs 70%
- Governance steps published: 3-day Snapshot vote, majority rule, Spark Spell
- Spark PSM released under AGPL-3.0, a recognised open-source licence
Cons
- Reserve factors for DAI, USDS, USDC, USDT and PYUSD are not given in the docs
- No execution delay is stated between a passed vote and a parameter change
- Security page names no audit firms; most Spark reports are versioned, not dated
- Core licence still reads BUSL naming Aave, though its change date has passed
Silo Finance scores 6.0/10 in lending on desk research of its v3 docs and code, checked November 1, 2026. Each market's liquidation fee is fixed for life and fees are capped in code, but its licence stays BUSL until 2031 and no timelock is documented.
Pros
- Liquidation fee set per market at deployment and cannot be changed afterward
- Factory caps published in code: 50% hard cap, liquidation fee up to 30%
- Collateral-debt swap split published: lenders get debt plus 80% of the fee
- v2, vault and leverage audits named and dated, from Certora to Code4rena
Cons
- BUSL-1.1 with a change date of January 31, 2031, the longest delay in this ranking
- v3 audit reports are linked without dates
- No timelock documented; the factory owner is not named
- Liquidation thresholds and actual fees must be read from each market's contract
Compound III scores 5.6 among lending protocols, with a 7 for governance and no mark higher. No fee or reserve figures are published and its two named audits are undated in the docs. Re-scored from 5.2 on desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Governance 7: one Timelock controls all Compound III markets, with a 2-day delay and 400,000-vote quorum
- Liquidation process documented by formula, from absorb to the buy-collateral discount
- Institutional Market lists LTV of 81%-87% and penalties of 5%-10% by asset
- Licence 6: the BUSL change date of December 31, 2025 has passed, granting GPL-2.0-or-later rights
Cons
- Fee disclosure 3: no reserve, kink or rate figures are published for any market
- Per-asset liquidation factors for the main markets are not in the documentation
- Audits 6: only two firms named, undated in the docs, and no audits folder in the repository
- Licence file text still reads BUSL, so its converted status is not stated on its face
- Governance figures sit in the v2 docs, and a multisig Pause Guardian can halt operations outside the vote
Fluid scores 5.0 among lending protocols, with a 9 for audit disclosure and marks of 3 to 5 elsewhere. Fees and most liquidation values are not documented as figures, and its licence allows educational use only. Re-scored from 4.2 on desk research checked November 1, 2026.
Pros
- Audit disclosure 9: seven linked reports from PeckShield, StateMind, MixBytes and Cantina
- The Liquidity Layer, vaults and DEX each have at least one audit report
- Liquidation terms 5: logic explained, with a 1% penalty stated for the ETH/USDC vault
- Governance 5: core contracts under governance since February 2024, with a 24-hour timelock in governance code
Cons
- Fee disclosure 3: fee levers described, but no schedule of current values in the docs
- Licence 3: BUSL-1.1 grant allows educational use only until December 19, 2027
- The docs state no timelock delay, and a team multisig keeps guardian and vault-deployer powers
- Audit reports are undated on the page, and no bug bounty is mentioned
Best crypto lending platforms by use case
- You want liquidation terms that cannot be changed after you borrow: Morpho is the only market here with a 10 for liquidation terms. Each market's liquidation loan-to-value is chosen from a fixed list at creation, the liquidation incentive follows one published formula, and the core contracts are immutable. Its code is under GPL-2.0 (licence 10). It states no timelock on governance actions, which holds that mark at 7.
- You want warning before risk parameters change: Venus Protocol states its timelocks to the hour: 48 hours for normal proposals, 6 for fast-track and 1 for critical actions on BNB Chain (governance 9). One caveat: risk stewards can move collateral factors and liquidation thresholds by up to 10% with no timelock. Aave also scores 9, with a 1-day Short Executor and a 7-day Long Executor for changes to governance itself.
- You borrow on Solana and want to know every fee: Kamino has the only 10 for fee disclosure. It publishes its protocol spread per market, 11% to 20% of interest paid, and states there are no deposit, withdrawal or origination fees. Its lending code is under BUSL-1.1 until 17 November 2027 (licence 4).
- You want the fullest audit record: Venus links 115 reports from 12 firms, dated February 2023 to October 2026. Euler and Aave also hold 10s for audits, Euler with a dated table of more than 60 engagements.
- You want a liquidation fee that never moves: Silo Finance sets each market's liquidation fee at deployment and it cannot be changed afterward. Its licence stays BUSL until 31 January 2031, the longest delay in this ranking.
How the ranking works
Each platform is marked from 0 to 10 on five criteria, read from its documentation, contracts and repository files:
- Fee disclosure: protocol fees, reserve factors and any origination or exit charges published as figures. Stating that there are none counts; describing them as configurable parameters does not.
- Licence & code openness: the licence in the repository. A recognized open-source licence scores highest, a delayed-open licence such as BUSL scores mid-table or lower, and no licence file scores lowest.
- Liquidation terms: the liquidation threshold, close factor and penalty published as numbers a borrower can plan around.
- Governance & timelock: who can change risk parameters, and whether a stated delay stands between a decision and its effect.
- Audit disclosure: reports published with firms named and dated.
The overall score is the plain average of the five marks, equally weighted and rounded to one decimal; ties would be listed alphabetically, and there are none in this update. All marks come from desk research of primary sources checked on 1 November 2026. Nothing was scored from depositing or borrowing. Marks are re-checked as documentation changes, and each review logs what moved and why. The rules are set out on the ratings methodology page.
| Platform | Fees | Licence | Liquidation | Governance | Audits | Overall |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morpho | 8 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 8.8 |
| Venus Protocol | 5 | 9 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 7.6 |
| Kamino | 10 | 4 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 7.2 |
| Euler | 8 | 4 | 6 | 7 | 10 | 7.0 |
| Aave | 4 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 6.6 |
| Spark | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 6.2 |
| Silo Finance | 6 | 3 | 7 | 5 | 9 | 6.0 |
| Compound | 3 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 5.6 |
| Fluid | 3 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 9 | 5.0 |
Two patterns stand out. Audit marks are high almost everywhere, so they separate little; the spread comes from fees and licences. And several of the largest markets publish their liquidation and fee settings only as per-asset parameters to be read on-chain, which is why Aave, a long-established protocol, scores 4 for fees.
What changed in this update
- Morpho rose to 8.8 from 8.0. Its governance page now names the 5-of-9 multisig that executes votes and states the core contracts are immutable (governance 5 to 7), and its audits page lists 34 dated reports from 13 firms (7 to 9).
- Venus Protocol gained on audits (8 to 10) from a 115-report catalog, but slipped on governance (10 to 9) because the new risk-steward framework lets some parameters move without a timelock.
- Kamino held its total while two marks moved: liquidation terms fell from 10 to 7 because the old close-factor and penalty figures are no longer in the docs, and governance rose from 3 to 6 on a stated 12-hour timelock for its SOL/BTC Market.
- From 4.2, Fluid now has 5.0, after its governance code was found to use a 24-hour timelock and its liquidation guide gave a 1% penalty on ETH/USDC. From 6.8, Euler now has 7.0 on a dated audit table. From 5.2, Compound now has 5.6, as two named audits were linked and its BUSL change date passed.
- Silo Finance lost a point on audits (10 to 9) because the rated code is now Silo v3, whose reports carry no dates. Spark was flat overall: a newly published reserve factor offset an audit page that no longer names firms.
Radiant Capital has been withdrawn from the ranking after the protocol was sunset in June 2026.
Why does the ranking ignore interest rates?
Because lending rates float with utilization and can change from one block to the next, a rate quoted today says little about what you will earn or pay next month. The terms that decide whether you keep your collateral, such as the liquidation threshold, the penalty and the delay before someone can change them, are what the rubric scores. Check the live supply and borrow rates in the app at the moment you act, and read our guide on how DeFi lending sets collateral and interest rates.
What the scores do not cover
- Incident history and bad debt. On 15 March 2026 a donation attack on the THE market in Venus's BNB Chain Core Pool left about $2.15 million of bad debt, per Venus's post-mortem. Euler's own retrospective says vaults with no governor built up bad debt after the Stream Finance default and the March 2026 Resolv exploit. Silo's leverage contract was exploited on 25 June 2025; Certora's report says the funds lost were Silo's own. None of these changes a mark.
- Collateral and oracle risk. The rubric reads published terms, not the quality of the assets a market accepts or the price feeds it uses. A clear threshold on a volatile or illiquid collateral asset can still be breached in minutes.
- Who absorbs losses. Kamino has no protocol-level insurance fund, so lenders in a reserve absorb bad debt. Aave's staking backstop on Ethereum v3 sits outside the five criteria.
- Curated and isolated markets. On Morpho, Euler and Silo, terms are set market by market or vault by vault. A platform's score describes its framework, not every market built on it.
- Networks and access. Coverage differs: Spark now runs only on Ethereum after its Gnosis market was deprecated in September 2026, and Kamino is a Solana protocol. Regional access is not scored.
How to choose a lending platform
- Find the exact market's liquidation threshold and penalty, not the protocol's typical values. On Aave, Silo and Compound these are per-asset or per-market settings you may need to read on-chain.
- Work out your buffer. Estimate how far the collateral price can fall before you are liquidated, and keep a margin above it. Our guide to reading a DeFi lending market before you borrow walks through the numbers.
- Check who can change the terms and how quickly. A named timelock gives you time to exit; a multisig with no stated delay does not.
- Read the fee lines: the reserve factor taken from interest, any protocol spread, and any liquidation fee on top of the liquidator's bonus.
- Know who covers bad debt in the pool you supply to: an insurance fund, a staking backstop, or the lenders themselves.
- Check the audits of the version you use. Morpho's Blue core, for example, has three reports, all from 2023, within a larger archive.
How we score this category
In a lending market the terms that decide whether you keep your collateral are the liquidation threshold, the penalty and who can change them. This rubric therefore scores documentation rather than headline rates: rates move block to block and mean little, while a published liquidation penalty and a timelock on parameter changes tell you what happens on your worst day. Licences are read from the LICENSE file, not from the marketing page.
Every service in this ranking is scored 0–10 against the same 5 criteria, each carrying equal weight (20% apiece). The overall score is their plain average, rounded to one decimal place, and each review prints the individual numbers and the arithmetic so you can reproduce the result yourself.
What each criterion covers
- Fee disclosure20% of the score
- Whether protocol fees, reserve factors and any origination or exit charges are published as figures rather than described as configurable parameters. Stating there are no origination fees counts as disclosure; leaving the field undocumented does not.
- Licence & code openness20% of the score
- The licence in the repository, read directly. A recognised open-source licence scores highest, a delayed-open licence such as BUSL scores mid-table, and a repository with no licence file at all scores lowest — published code with no grant of rights reserves every right by default.
- Liquidation terms20% of the score
- Whether the liquidation threshold, close factor and penalty are published as numbers a borrower can plan around, rather than left as per-market parameters a reader must dig out of a contract.
- Governance & timelock20% of the score
- Who can change risk parameters, and whether a delay stands between a decision and its effect. A named timelock with a stated duration is the difference between a governed protocol and one that can be altered under you without warning.
- Audit disclosure20% of the score
- Whether audit reports are published with the firms named and dated. A long list of named firms with recent dates scores far above a claim that the protocol has been audited.
What does not affect a score
Only the criteria above count. No provider can buy a score, a rank, or an entry in this list. Where two services finish level, they are listed alphabetically rather than ordered silently.
The process across all categories, including how often we re-check, is set out in our ratings methodology.
Frequently asked questions
How were the lending platforms in this ranking selected?
The ranking includes the nine on-chain lending protocols with a current Coin Currents Daily review, each marked on all five criteria from primary sources. Centralized lenders are not included. Radiant Capital was withdrawn after the protocol was sunset in June 2026.
How is a lending platform's overall score calculated?
Each criterion is marked from 0 to 10, and the overall score is the equal-weight average, rounded to one decimal. Morpho, for example, has 8, 10, 10, 7 and 9, which averages 8.8. Ties are listed alphabetically.
Which lending platform fits a borrower who wants predictable liquidation terms?
On the recorded marks, Morpho: its liquidation loan-to-value is fixed per market at creation and its liquidation incentive follows a published formula, which earns the only 10 for liquidation terms. Spark is next on that criterion at 8, publishing the health factor at which full liquidation applies.
What fees should I check before supplying or borrowing?
Look for the reserve factor or protocol spread taken from interest, any origination or exit fee, and the liquidation penalty and protocol fee. Several platforms, including Aave, Compound and Fluid, describe these as parameters without publishing the current figures, so check the live market before you act.
How old are the measurements on this page?
All marks were checked against primary sources on 1 November 2026, and the previous check was in July 2026. Risk parameters can change by governance at any time, so each review records score changes with the source and the reason.
Rankings are editorial. Nothing here is financial advice. Editorial policy · How we score · How we're funded.