儘管發生大規模漏洞利用且投資人撤資 130 億美元，為何 DeFi 並未消亡

📄完整原文· 由 trafilatura 自動擷取7150 字

Why DeFi isn't dead despite massive exploits and $13 billion investor exodus A $292 million exploit and $13 billion TVL drop looks catastrophic on the surface, but the data tells a different story. What to know: - KelpDAO's $292 million exploit triggered $13 billion in DeFi TVL losses, but much of that was leveraged positions unwinding — not real capital destruction. - Spark TVL jumped from $1.8 billion to $2.9 billion over the weekend as users moved away from Aave. - DeFi has survived larger hacks — Ronin, Wormhole, Poly Network — but the exploit will raise risk premiums for onchain systems whose attack surface now extends beyond smart contracts into infrastructure. The easiest take after a $290 million exploit and a roughly $13 billion slide in DeFi total value locked is that decentralized finance is broken again. It is also probably the laziest. The KelpDAO exploit over the weekend was serious. It appears to have started with a targeted attack on infrastructure used in LayerZero's verification stack, not a smart contract bug as commonly seen in other exploits. LayerZero has preliminarily linked the incident to North Korea's Lazarus Group, and said the attack succeeded because Kelp had opted for a single-verifier setup despite repeated recommendations to use a more resistant configuration. The exploit left rsETH (a liquid staking token issued by KelpDAO) unbacked and triggered fears that bad debt would spill into lending markets, especially Aave's WETH pool (where users borrow wrapped ether against collateral). And yet the more interesting story is not that DeFi was hit. It is that DeFi is still here. Capital fled quickly after the breach. Aave alone experienced $8.45 billion in outflows over 48 hours, while broader DeFi TVL fell into the mid-$80 billion range, roughly back to where the sector sat around this point last year. In other words, this was a sharp repricing of risk, not as destructive as some are making out. Aave, the largest DeFi lending market, had accumulated significant rsETH as collateral in the weeks before the exploit as users built leveraged positions. The scale of that TVL drop also warrants some context. A $292 million theft does not directly produce a $13 billion decline unless a meaningful portion of that TVL was already recycled collateral. Much of Aave's ETH exposure heading into the weekend was concentrated in looping strategies, where users deposit liquid restaking tokens, borrow ETH against them, swap for more restaking tokens, and repeat. In other words, the same pile of assets may be counted multiple times in the TVL calculation. That leverage inflates TVL on the way up and unwinds sharply during events like this. The actual net capital loss is likely a fraction of the headline figure, though the exact amount is difficult to isolate given how deeply looping strategies are embedded in DeFi's TVL calculations. [embed chart 1 here] Those strategies were themselves partly a product of a yield environment that had already stopped making sense. As of early April, Aave was offering 2.61% APY on USDC deposits, below the 3.14% available on idle cash at Interactive Brokers, a traditional financial brokerage. The risk premium that historically justified DeFi's complexity and smart contract exposure had largely disappeared. With organic yield insufficient, leverage filled the gap, and that concentration is what made the rsETH contagion as damaging as it was. Data from DefiLlama shows that reETH balances on Aave had grown rapidly in the weeks leading up to the exploit, reaching nearly 580,000 tokens ($1.3 billion), evidence that the leverage buildup made the subsequent unwind so sharp. Crypto has survived worse The phrase "DeFi is dead" gets wheeled out after every hack because the failures are visible and immediate, while the recovery is slower and less cinematic. But crypto has seen worse. Terra collapsed and vaporized confidence across the sector. Wormhole and Ronin lost roughly $1 billion each. Multichain unraveled. "DeFi didn't die when Terra collapsed and caused billions in liquidations and losses," wrote a pseudonymous trader on X. "DeFi didn't die when Wormhole and Ronin got drained for around $1 billion. DeFi didn't die when Multichain bridge assets were stolen." More recently, Bybit suffered what was widely described as the largest crypto theft on record, losing around $1.5 billion last February, yet it continued operating, processed a surge in withdrawals, restored reserves and still handles billions of dollars in trading volume each day. The repricing of trust 0xNGMI, founder of DefiLlama, told CoinDesk the losses are significant but unlikely to be existential. "Aave has many recourses to cover the loss, including its treasury and taking loans, and I think those will have to be used to protect the protocol," he said. "Overall a significant loss but one that will be recovered. The biggest issue will be the impact on risk premiums that are assigned to DeFi." Those risk premiums are a real and lasting cost. Capital will demand more compensation for sitting in onchain systems whose attack surface now extends beyond code Still, repricing is not the same thing as collapse. "Some of the money will come back," 0xNGMI said. "We saw this before in Aave when rumors of a hack appeared. It's always the best strategy to withdraw and redeposit later as the cost of that is tiny and the reward very large." Some deposits will not return, but historically deposit outflows during stress events reverse as conditions stabilize, as evidence after Terra’s collapse in 2021. There is also evidence that capital is not simply leaving DeFi. It is rotating. Spark offers one example. Spark's strategy lead, who goes by monetsupply.eth, said the protocol delisted rsETH and other low-utilization assets in January, a move that may have cost it business and ETH-looping activity to Aave at the time. Under current conditions, however, SparkLend still has ample ETH withdrawal liquidity while Aave is experiencing shortages across several markets. Over the weekend Spark TVL jumped from $1.8 billion to $2.9 billion, demonstrating clear capital rotation. The more interesting critique, raised by some builders after the exploit, is not that DeFi failed but that it has become too timid. If the sector is going to ask users to bear infrastructure risk, smart contract risk and governance risk for low single-digit yields, the product set starts to look less compelling. With that in mind, Kelp is not the end of DeFi. It is a wake-up call for builders to build safer systems while continuing to offer real world use cases. More For You Maximalists warn freezing 5.6M BTC risks instant sell-offs, while others say quantum threats leave no alternative. What to know: - Bitcoin developers and analysts are fiercely debating a proposal to freeze about 5.6 million long-dormant coins to protect them from potential future quantum-computing attacks. - Critics warn that freezing any coins would shatter Bitcoin’s promise of unconditional, censorship-resistant ownership and could trigger one of the worst single-day repricings in the cryptocurrency’s...

資料狀態✓ 已擷取全文閱讀原文（CoinDesk）

🔍歷史類似事件· 關鍵字 + 標的比對6 則

2026-04-20

Bitcoin 彈升至 $76,000 以上，DeFi 因 KelpDAO 被駭導致 $140 億資金出走

相似度 180%關鍵字 defi/exodus/billion

2026-04-25

Willy Woo 解釋為何 Bitcoin 儘管具備避險資產屬性，交易表現卻如同風險資產

相似度 130%關鍵字 despite/why

2026-04-23

DeFi 在三天內蒸發了 150 億美元。這背後的原因遠比駭客攻擊更深層

相似度 130%關鍵字 defi/billion

2026-04-23

1450 億美元的算術：為何 Bitcoin 的量子威脅是可控的，而非生存危機

相似度 130%關鍵字 why/billion

2026-04-23

Andre Cronje 的 Flying Tulip 加入提款熔斷機制，以應對日益增加的 DeFi 攻擊事件

相似度 130%關鍵字 defi/exploits

2026-04-20

近 10 億美元的 Bitcoin ETF 資金流入支撐了看漲論點，而 Kelp 遭駭事件則加劇了 DeFi 的不安情緒

相似度 130%關鍵字 defi/billion

💡 目前用關鍵字 + 標的比對（MVP）· 之後會升級為 embedding 語意搜尋

原始資訊

ID：c45b3dc898

來源：CoinDesk

發佈：2026-04-26 15:00:00

分類：一般 · 導出分類 neutral

標的：未指定

社群投票：+0 / −0 · ⭐ 0 重要 · 💬 0 留言