The collapse of Three Arrows Capital (3AC), once one of the largest crypto venture firms managing over $10 billion in assets, sent shockwaves across the digital asset ecosystem. As the value of its holdings—BTC, ETH, LUNA, and UST—plummeted, its leveraged positions across centralized and decentralized platforms faced liquidation. This event underscored a critical truth: while DeFi leverage fueled the recent bull market, it also magnified systemic risk during the downturn.
This article explores how leverage operates in decentralized finance, its role in credit expansion, and the cascading failures it triggered—offering key insights for investors navigating future cycles.
How DeFi Enables Leverage
Leverage in traditional finance allows investors to amplify returns by borrowing capital. In DeFi, this is achieved through permissionless, algorithmic protocols. Unlike banks, DeFi platforms rely on smart contracts and over-collateralization to manage risk—yet users have developed sophisticated strategies to increase exposure far beyond initial deposits.
1.1 Collateralized Debt Positions and Stablecoins
At the heart of DeFi leverage lies the collateralized debt position (CDP). Protocols like MakerDAO allow users to deposit crypto assets (e.g., ETH, WBTC) and mint a stablecoin—DAI—pegged to the US dollar.
To maintain stability, DAI requires over-collateralization. For example, MakerDAO’s ETH-A vault demands a minimum collateral ratio of 145%. This means $1,000 worth of ETH can mint up to ~690 DAI. If ETH’s price drops and the ratio falls below threshold, the position is liquidated—allowing third parties to buy collateral at a discount.
Despite its risks, this system has proven resilient. With over $6.8 billion in DAI outstanding (as of mid-2022), MakerDAO remains a cornerstone of DeFi credit infrastructure.
👉 Discover how decentralized lending can transform your investment strategy.
1.2 Decentralized Lending Markets
Protocols like Aave and Compound enable users to borrow various cryptocurrencies—not just stablecoins—using deposited assets as collateral. Interest rates are algorithmically adjusted based on supply and demand.
These platforms support both long and short positions. For instance, a trader can deposit USDC, borrow ETH, sell it on a DEX, and later repay the loan if ETH’s price drops—profiting from the decline.
However, when asset prices fall sharply, undercollateralized loans trigger mass liquidations. As seen during the 2022 crash, stablecoin-denominated loans dominate these platforms, meaning downward price pressure intensifies repayment risks.
1.3 Recursive Borrowing: The Leverage Loop
Even with over-collateralization, users can amplify exposure via recursive borrowing—a “loop” strategy where borrowed funds are reinvested to generate more collateral.
Example:
- Deposit $1,000 ETH → borrow 500 DAI
- Use DAI to buy $500 ETH → deposit again
- Repeat → achieve up to 2x leverage
Platforms like Oasis.app automate this process, enabling up to 4.33x leverage on ETH or BTC positions. While each loop maintains collateral health, the effective leverage increases significantly—masking true risk beneath seemingly safe ratios.
1.4 Derivatives and Perpetual Contracts
On-chain derivatives platforms like dYdX and GMX offer perpetual futures contracts with up to 20x leverage. Traders open long or short positions with minimal margin.
When margin levels drop below maintenance thresholds, positions are liquidated—often exacerbating price moves. Although on-chain derivatives represent a smaller share of total volume compared to centralized exchanges (CEX), their integration into DeFi ecosystems increases systemic interconnectivity.
1.5 Summary: Leverage as Catalyst and Catalyst for Collapse
Leverage accelerates gains in bull markets but deepens losses during downturns. As asset prices rise, investors borrow more—fueling further price increases. Conversely, falling prices trigger liquidations, dumping assets into already weak markets and sparking cascading sell-offs.
While CDPs and lending protocols are designed to be safe, recursive strategies and interconnected platforms amplify fragility.
The Expansion of Credit in DeFi
Just as central banks expand credit in traditional economies, DeFi protocols have experimented with mechanisms to increase monetary supply—often measured by stablecoin issuance.
2.1 The Holy Grail: A Truly Decentralized Stablecoin
The ideal stablecoin would be:
- Fully decentralized
- Capital-efficient
- Resilient under stress
While DAI is decentralized and over-collateralized, its capital inefficiency limits scalability. In contrast, USDT and USDC offer efficiency but rely on centralized custodians—raising trust issues.
This tension led developers to pursue algorithmic stablecoins, aiming to balance decentralization with efficiency.
2.2 UST: The Illusion of Stability
Terra’s UST was marketed as a decentralized stablecoin backed not by fiat or crypto reserves, but by an algorithmic mechanism tied to LUNA.
Users could:
- Burn $1 worth of LUNA → mint 1 UST
- Burn 1 UST → mint $1 worth of LUNA
Arbitrage was meant to maintain the peg. But when confidence waned in May 2022, massive redemptions flooded the system. Each UST burned created new LUNA—flooding the market and triggering a death spiral.
With insufficient liquidity to absorb sell pressure, UST depegged permanently. LUNA’s market cap collapsed from $40B+ to near zero in days.
👉 Learn how algorithmic models can fail—and how to spot warning signs early.
2.3 Degenbox: Unlocking Systemic Risk
Abracadabra.money’s Degenbox introduced a high-leverage strategy using UST. Users deposited UST, which was bridged to Terra’s Anchor Protocol earning ~20% APY. The yield-bearing token (aUST) was then used as collateral to borrow MIM, another stablecoin.
Because both assets were considered “stable,” low collateral ratios applied—enabling 4–5x leverage on UST deposits.
This created a dangerous feedback loop:
- More UST deposited → more MIM minted → more UST bought → higher yields promised
- When UST depegged, MIM loans became undercollateralized → mass liquidations → increased UST sell pressure
Abracadabra ultimately recorded $12 million in bad debt—a direct result of overexposure to a fragile stablecoin.
2.4 Centralized Crypto Firms: Hidden Risks Off-Chain
While much DeFi activity is transparent on-chain, many institutions—including 3AC, Celsius, and BlockFi—operate largely off-chain.
These CeFi platforms:
- Offer high yields to attract deposits
- Re-lend or rehypothecate user funds
- Use opaque leverage strategies
When UST collapsed, these firms faced sudden liquidity crunches. Their inability to meet withdrawal demands exposed a lack of transparency and excessive risk-taking—proving that off-chain opacity remains a major vulnerability.
After the Tide Recedes: Lessons from the Crash
As Warren Buffett said: “Only when the tide goes out do you discover who’s been swimming naked.”
3.1 Leverage Amplifies Volatility and Pro-Cyclicality
High leverage creates pro-cyclical dynamics:
- Upward momentum encourages more borrowing
- Downward pressure forces liquidations → deeper declines
Recursive borrowing and interconnected protocols turn isolated shocks into systemic crises. Even over-collateralized systems fail when speed of price decline exceeds liquidation capacity.
3.2 Stablecoin Risks Are Underestimated
All stablecoins carry risk:
- Fiat-backed: Counterparty and audit risks (e.g., commercial paper exposure)
- Crypto-collateralized: Volatility and liquidation risks (e.g., DAI)
- Algorithmic: Confidence-dependent; collapse rapidly when trust breaks (e.g., UST)
Regulators are now scrutinizing stablecoin reserves more closely—a trend likely to accelerate.
3.3 Conclusion: Back to Fundamentals
The 2022 crash revealed that innovation without risk management leads to ruin. Sustainable growth requires:
- Lower leverage
- Transparent operations
- Stronger risk controls
- Investment in core infrastructure
Only by rebuilding with discipline can DeFi mature into a resilient financial layer.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is DeFi leverage?
A: DeFi leverage refers to borrowing assets via decentralized protocols to increase investment exposure—commonly using collateralized loans, looping strategies, or derivatives.
Q: How did UST lose its peg?
A: A loss of confidence led to mass redemptions. The algorithm minted excessive LUNA to maintain parity, causing hyperinflation and a death spiral in price.
Q: Can DeFi loans be uncollateralized?
A: Most require collateral, but some protocols offer unsecured loans to vetted institutions or DAOs—introducing counterparty risk into otherwise trustless systems.
Q: Is DAI safe after the UST collapse?
A: Yes—DAI remains over-collateralized and diversified across multiple asset types. It survived the crash with its peg intact, unlike algorithmic alternatives.
Q: How can I avoid liquidation in DeFi?
A: Maintain a healthy collateral ratio well above minimums, monitor price movements closely, and consider using automated tools or stop-loss mechanisms.
Q: Will regulation affect DeFi leverage?
A: Likely yes. Post-UST, regulators are focusing on stablecoins and lending practices. Future rules may impose limits on leverage or require greater transparency.
👉 Stay ahead of market cycles with tools designed for smart leverage management.