How OBOL rates lending protocols
Every lending protocol failure in this sector traces back to one of two things: collateral that should not have been accepted, or a price feed that could be pushed. Those two criteria therefore carry nearly half the weight in this rubric, ahead of rates, which are the thing most users compare first.
Loss record is scored on conduct as much as size. A protocol that took bad debt and recapitalised through governance is in a different position from one that quietly left lenders short. Where a protocol has been exploited, we look at whether funds were recovered, whether the fix was structural, and whether the same class of bug remains possible.
High rates are a warning, not a reward
A supply rate far above the market usually means one of three things: emissions subsidising it, borrowers who cannot get credit elsewhere, or collateral nobody else would accept. We check which before scoring the rate favourably.
Isolation is the structural improvement of the last cycle
Isolated markets and per-asset caps mean a single bad listing no longer threatens every depositor. Protocols that have adopted that architecture score better on collateral policy than those still running one shared pool for every asset.