Skip to main content
In DeFi, yield can take multiple forms, each linked to a distinct type of economic activity within the protocol. Although the diversity of mechanisms is striking, they all share a common foundation: yield is compensation for contributing resources, capital, liquidity, or operational capacity, that the protocol requires to operate effectively. Understanding the nature of the yield is essential, as it determines both the potential return and the associated risk profile. One of the most common forms is lending yield. Lending protocols allow users to deposit assets into liquidity pools from which other participants can borrow. The interest paid by borrowers flows directly to the lenders, with rates determined algorithmically based on supply and demand. In this model, yield represents the price of credit in a decentralized environment. While the principle resembles that of a traditional money market, the absence of centralized underwriting and the reliance on overcollateralization fundamentally change the risk dynamics.
Borrowing Mechanism in DeFi Lending Protocols In decentralized lending protocols, borrowing is governed by overcollateralization and loan-to-value (LTV) ratios. To borrow, a user must first supply collateral, which determines the maximum amount available to withdraw. For example, if the collateral factor (LTV limit) for ETH is 75%, a user depositing $10,000 worth of ETH can borrow up to $7,500 in assets. The borrowed funds accrue interest at a variable rate, set algorithmically according to supply and demand conditions in the pool. Lenders receive this interest as yield, while borrowers pay it as the cost of liquidity. If the value of the collateral falls and the LTV exceeds the liquidation threshold (e.g., 80%), the position becomes eligible for liquidation. Liquidators repay part of the debt in exchange for a discount on collateral, restoring solvency to the protocol. This structure protects lenders against borrower default, but it also exposes borrowers to risks tied to collateral volatility and the possibility of liquidation.
Another core source of yield is liquidity provision for decentralized exchanges, particularly automated market makers. Here, participants supply pairs of tokens to liquidity pools that facilitate instant, permissionless swaps. In return, they receive a share of the trading fees generated by each swap. The yield in this case is directly linked to trading volume and liquidity depth. However, it is also subject to impermanent loss, the risk that the relative prices of the pooled assets change in a way that reduces the provider’s total value compared to holding the assets outright.
Impermanent Loss in Liquidity Provision Consider an investor supplying $100,000 split evenly between ETH and USDC into a Uniswap v2 pool. At the time of deposit, ETH trades at $2,000, so the investor provides 25 ETH ($50,000) and $50,000 USDC. If ETH doubles to $4,000, holding outside the pool would result in $100,000 (25 ETH × $4,000) plus $50,000 USDC = $150,000. Inside the pool, the constant-product formula forces a rebalance. The investor ends up with ~17.68 ETH and ~70,711 USDC, worth about $141,421 at the new ETH price. The difference between the “hold” strategy ($150,000) and the pool outcome ($141,421) is the impermanent loss, about –5.7% in this case. Trading fees may offset this gap, but impermanent loss remains a structural risk of AMM liquidity provision. It is minimal in stablecoin pools but significant in volatile pairs such as ETH/USDC.
A more specialized category of yield emerges from fixed-rate yield markets, such as those offered by Pendle or Spectra. These protocols allow the tokenization and separation of a yield-bearing asset into two components: the principal and the yield stream. This enables market participants to lock in a fixed return by purchasing the yield token at a discount, or to speculate on future yield levels by trading these instruments. The result is a market structure more familiar to fixed-income investors, introducing concepts like duration and yield curve positioning into the DeFi space.
How Pendle Splits Yield and Principal Pendle enables investors to separate a yield-bearing asset into two distinct components that can be traded independently. Principal Token (PT) represents ownership of the underlying asset at maturity. It behaves like a zero-coupon bond: investors who acquire PT at a discount redeem the full value of the asset at maturity, locking in a fixed return. The Yield Token (YT) represents the right to the yield generated by the underlying asset over the period. Its market value adjusts continuously with expectations of future yields. For example, a user deposits 100 stETH into Pendle. The position is split into 100 PT-stETH and 100 YT-stETH, both maturing in one year. If PT-stETH trades at 0.95 ETH, an investor purchasing 100 PT pays 95 ETH and redeems 100 ETH at maturity, realizing a 5% fixed yield. Conversely, a more speculative investor may buy YT-stETH, gaining leveraged exposure to staking rewards: the token appreciates if yields rise and loses value if they fall.
Staking is another important yield source, particularly in proof-of-stake blockchains. Validators, or those who delegate tokens to them, receive rewards for securing the network, validating transactions, and producing blocks. These rewards are typically paid in the network’s native token and may include both transaction fees and newly issued coins. Liquid staking solutions such as Lido or Rocket Pool make this process more flexible by issuing derivative tokens that represent staked positions, allowing participants to earn staking rewards while retaining liquidity for other strategies. Insurance-related yield is less common but represents a growing niche in DeFi. Some protocols compensate participants for providing coverage against specific risks. For example, Aave’s Safety Module allows users to stake AAVE tokens to protect the protocol against “bad debt” resulting from market volatility or liquidation failures. In return, stakers earn a yield funded by the protocol’s treasury and possibly by other incentive mechanisms. While potentially lucrative, such yields expose participants to tail-risk events that may require their staked assets to be partially or fully slashed. Finally, certain yields are tied to governance token distributions, often structured as airdrops or liquidity mining campaigns. In these cases, participants receive newly issued tokens in exchange for supplying liquidity, using the protocol, or meeting other predefined criteria. While these rewards can significantly boost total returns in the short term, they are typically dilutive and may decline sharply as the protocol matures and emissions taper off. Each of these yield types has distinct risk and return characteristics, liquidity profiles, and sensitivity to market conditions. A comprehensive analysis must consider not only the nominal rate on offer but also the sustainability of the underlying activity and the volatility of the asset on which the yield is denominated. For portfolio managers, understanding these distinctions is the first step toward constructing a yield strategy that aligns with the investor’s objectives and risk tolerance.