Connect with us


Alex McDougall: Here Comes the Open Lending Era

Open lending grew from a fringe use-case to a burgeoning engine powering the next phase of the digital economy.



Dec 24, 2020 at 8:00 a.m. UTC

Here Comes the Open Lending Era

In 2020 we finally saw some of the nearly decade-long blockchain hype fulfilled and the legitimate building blocks of a next-generation banking system emerge.

Open finance, and specifically open lending, has exploded to well over $10 billion this year. This growth has catalyzed a new source of funding for market participants ranging from individuals to corporates to hedge funds. It has also created a new source of liquid “digital yield” for investors, corporates and savers starving for an alternative to the perpetual 0% offered in legacy systems.

This post is part of CoinDesk’s 2020 Year in Review – a collection of op-eds, essays and interviews about the year in crypto and beyond. Alex McDougall is co-founder and chief investment officer of Bicameral Ventures.

The open lending landscape is formed by decentralized and centralized platforms that pool fiat assets and lend them out against collateral posted as digital assets.

A hallmark of this space is extreme flexibility to lend and borrow at any term, in any currency, at any size, with any level of direct collateral, for any period of time (even on a block by block basis). This ability to customize at low scale opens up an entire “yield-as-service” or capital-as-a-service industry of bespoke solutions tailored for anyone looking for yield or flexible borrowing.

There is one burning question: Is this real? In 2020, the entire digital asset market took a meaningful step forward in maturity. As part of this ongoing evolution, institutional grade financial infrastructure needs to be developed. In 2020, through an influx of capital and talent, open lending stepped up its game and grew from a fringe use case to a burgeoning engine powering the next phase of the digital economy.

The fundamentals

Think about an open lending platform as a super simple, super transparent bank. Banks take in deposits, keep a tiny amount on hand for liquidity and lend the rest out in a complicated and opaque quest to find a spread.

Banks will undertake all sorts of strategies in the great quest for yield including derivatives and esoteric combinations of loan products. Depositors generally don’t think too hard about what the bank is up to with their capital given their deposits are mostly insured by the FDIC. Banks themselves don’t think too hard about it either as governments have proven extremely willing to bail them out if they get the math and modelling wrong.

Open lending, on the other hand, is built from the fundamentals of blockchain: transparent, open and in real time. At their core, open lending platforms are performing similar functions in that they are taking in funds from lenders, retaining a certain amount for liquidity (usually closer to 20%) and lending the rest out.

The key differences between open lending and traditional banking lending products:

  • Loans are generally collateralized between 100%-300% by liquid digital assets versus collateralized by illiquid or no assets at all.
  • The net interest margin is mostly transparent and passed on to the actual lender versus kept as profits by the bank.
  • The majority of transactions, balances and liquidity can be seen in real time on the blockchain versus reported months later on financial statement.

The comparison on its surface boils down to:

  • Traditional Banks: 0% return, tiny liquidity reserves with limited transparency, poor governance fundamentals and very closely guarded underwriting practices but balances are insured.
  • Open lending platforms: 8%-10% return, greater and transparent reserves, better governance fundamentals, simple underwriting practice founded on highly liquid collateral but balances are not insured.

Open lending may be relatively basic today, but at its best it offers the building blocks of an entirely re-shaped financial system built on transparent, liquid and open fundamentals.

Decentralized fundamentals

Within decentralized finance (DeFi) there are four key segments, open lending (~45% of the market), decentralized exchanges (~30%), derivatives (~10%) and the rest is miscellaneous. As is expected when you create platforms that are fully transparent, borderless and entirely automated, when you release them into the wild weird stuff happens, especially when these markets interact with each other.

Where there are no frictions and easily accessible short-term leverage, there is nowhere to hide bad code, bad logic or bad risk management. The majority of “hacks” that we’ve seen in the DeFi space have been, quite frankly, ingenious manipulations of this decentralized, automated logic to arbitrage gaps in either the internal logic of platforms or between rules of two or more automated platforms.

While this may sound intimidating, it is not meant to be. It means that suboptimal platforms fail almost immediately as hundreds of thousands of users try to poke and prod at their infrastructure for their own gain on a 24-hour cycle.

In 2020, the entire digital asset market took a meaningful step forward in maturity.

This is as compared to the “traditional” world where rules, regulations and frictions ensure safety, but also that often opportunities are only able to be exploited by those with the biggest accounts, fastest connection speeds or best relationships. This isn’t even touching the “too big to fail” problem where governments have frequently bailed out banks that have proven to be poor stewards of capital and by doing so removed the majority of market discipline.

This has a very profound implication: If an open-sourced, transparent and decentralized finance protocol has a meaningful wall-clock time, it is very likely “fair.”

Fair establishes excellent fundamentals, but it doesn’t mean perfect. In the open lending space there are meaningful gaps in what the technology can enable in a true purely automated fashion. Key among the limitations of decentralized open lending platforms are:

  • Risk-based collateralization: In the DeFi world, your collateral is the platform’s underwriting. Anyone who shows up to Compound with $100 of ETH can borrow exactly $75 of USDC as calculated by the protocol, not a penny more or less. This is both wildly refreshing from an inclusion perspective but also inefficient and exclusive in its own way as it limits access to capital to only those who have collateral to post. There is enormous potential as we build tools that allow more discretion in autonomously underwriting specific borrower risks based on provable, on-chain risk factors.
  • Across-chain and off-chain integrations: No decentralized platform can currently allow me to borrow fiat against BTC collateral. I can borrow a U.S. dollar stablecoin against an Ethereum wrapped version of BTC (or soon native BTC) as a proxy. But every wrapper or abstraction layer adds risk and complexity and is never as functional as the underlying asset. There again is enormous value in mixing and matching what assets function as collateral and what assets I can remove from the platform against that collateral.
  • Direct posting of collateral: This is a nuanced point, but in on-chain lending pools lenders do not have a direct claim over any of the collateral posted by the borrowers. You have a claim to a certain amount of assets from within the pool but you are relying on the automated interest rate, margin call and liquidation mechanics to ensure that borrower risk is being managed and that there will be sufficient funds for you to withdraw when you need to. This is extremely efficient as all collateral is automatically rehypothecated (when deposit institutions re-lend or reuse customer collateral) and redeployed within the pools to fund loans and withdrawals leading to higher yields and lower borrow costs, but it is a very different paradigm than many institutional lenders are used to operating in.

Best of both?

Into this decentralized functionality gap step the centralized open lending players. At their best, these players are taking the “fair” best practices from decentralized platforms of transparency and algorithmic risk management and leveraging their centralized authority to fill in the limitations outlined above.

At their worst, though, centralized lending platforms can recreate the worst pieces of our existing financial infrastructure by creating opaque, over-risky, relationship-based, unauditable systems that cannot withstand the stress of a volatile market. There are illuminating examples of every flavor ranging from the reassuring (BlockFI and other platforms having zero losses despite a ~55% reduction in collateral value in March) to the unnerving (Cred’s murky bankruptcy proceedings in November).

The best in the business follow a few best practices:

  • Algorithmic underwriting: All collateralization and underwriting methodologies should be as algorithmic and transparent as possible with clear data-driven risk ratings that do not have exceptions.
  • Transparent rehypothecation: Rehypothecation is the act of utilizing assets that are pledged as collateral either for re-lending or to fund withdrawals. All rehypothecation practices should be transparent, traceable and rigidly enforced (ideally with the borrower receiving direct interest credit for their collateral like on decentralized platforms).
  • Automated unhealthy loan procedures: Margin call and liquidation practices should be automated and without exceptions as digital assets never stop trading.
  • Automatic pool sizing mechanics: Utilization rates (i.e. the amount of borrowed funds that are lent onwards, effectively the reserve ratio) should be transparent, targeted and adhered to and interest rates changed algorithmically to ensure that the pool to fund withdrawals stays sufficient (ideally with interest rate algorithm being disclosed publicly as on decentralized platforms like Compound).
  • Transparent Pool Balances: Pool sizes should be visible on-chain and wallets should be disclosed to leading Block Explorers to allow real-time external auditing, although it is acknowledged that privacy of individual lenders and borrowers does need to be considered. Celsius’ recent partnership with Horizen to explore zero-knowledge proof of reserves is an evolution in this vein.
  • Isolation of risk: Funds loaned into the pool should avoid being commingled with funds for other pieces of the business. Further, the terms and conditions or master loan agreement should specifically state that all lent funds will be used for pooled lending purposes.

Where do we stand?

There are several key factors that need to be understood to properly evaluate centralized platforms:

Rehypothecation is frequent and necessary

Given the high liquidity and high fungibility of the collateral posted, rehypothecation is somewhat more straightforward than in the more-bespoke, less-liquid collateral scenarios seen in traditional prime brokerage situations. Also given the extreme overcollateralization prevalent in the industry, rehypothecation is a critical piece of the business model and necessary to maximize returns, minimize borrow cost and maintain the “open term” liquidity of the platforms.

Collateral practices do vary by platform and by borrower

Most platforms have an institutional desk that will have a more flexible collateralization policy than the two to three times overcollateralization that is the industry standard. This is because the institutional desk is doing additional diligence and risk rating these borrowers. In a vacuum there is nothing wrong with this, but it does enhance the counterparty risk given it is additional, non-transparent discretion given to the platform operator and these practices need to be well understood.

Characterization of relationship is not consistent

The relationship between a “lender” and the centralized company running the lending pool can either be terms of service based more akin to a technology platform, or master loan agreement based and more akin to a traditional financial instrument. There are important distinctions between the two, and properly characterizing your relationship with the party governing the platform is critical to proper evaluation of risk.

There is fluctuating willingness to post collateral directly to a lender.

There is willingness by centralized platforms to post collateral from the pool directly in the name of the borrower in exchange for a reduction on yield. This yield spread is a function of what the collateral is and the opportunity cost of that asset within the platform and varies by platform. However, there are certain platforms that, as a rule, do not post collateral and maintain it exclusively within the pool. As a rule of thumb, it generally costs between 2%-6% to fully collateralize a stablecoin loan with BTC collateral.

Maturing market

In all, our takeaway from the open lending industry is that in 2020 it started growing up. There is a ton of work to do on transparency, messaging and optimizing risk controls, but there is legitimate business activity happening in this open lending space.

From trading, to hedging, to working capital, to treasury, tax and capital call management there are serious teams running serious operations, particularly at the institutional grade lending platforms. Decentralized platforms have shown the way and created “counterparty risk free” lending pools with total transparency, now it’s time for their centralized counterparts to leverage these fundamentals and continue picking up the slack to create the institutional grade money market industry and new generation banks we all need. To be clear, it’s happening, and rapidly.

The building blocks of the next generation of financial services are in view. With careful, thoughtful analysis of the right factors and with careful diversification across technology and counterparty, forward thinking investors and borrowers can meaningfully improve their bottom line and risk-adjusted returns without sacrificing liquidity in a way completely inaccessible to those not willing to lift up the hood and dig in.




World’s Oldest Central Bank Extends Digital Currency Test Till 2022

Riksbank said it would continue developing a technical solution for a central bank-issued e-krona under its pilot project.



Sweden’s Riksbank said it would continue work with Accenture on a potential e-krona digital currency until next year.

(Mario Ortiz/Shutterstock)

Feb 17, 2021 at 10:12 a.m. UTC

World’s Oldest Central Bank Extends Digital Currency Test Till 2022

The world’s oldest central bank, Sweden’s Riksbank, is to extend its pilot project for a potential central bank digital currency (CBDC) for another 12 months.

According to a press release on Friday, the project, which is being carried out with assistance from professional services firm Accenture, will run until February 2022.

The Riksbank said it would continue developing a technical solution for a central bank-issued e-krona “as a complement to cash,” with the primary objective being for the bank to increase its knowledge around the technology.

For 2021, the institution will continue developing its potential digital currency offering with a focus on performance and scalability. Testing offline functions and bringing external participants into the test environment is also on the table.

The project has raised some concerns from Sweden’s commercial banking sector over the viability of a sovereign CBDC and how that would impact the entire banking system.

There is no final decision over the issuance of the e-krona despite strong lobbying from the central bank to government last year. But with traditional cash seeing falling use, even more so during the coronavirus pandemic, Sweden has been mulling a switch to the CBDC.

However, questions still remain over the digital currency’s ultimate design and underlying technology, according to Friday’s release.



Continue Reading


Bitcoin Mining: Wasted Energy or a Better, Greener System?

Harry Sudock, VP of strategy at GRIID Infrastructure on the modern energy landscape, how far we’ve come and where bitcoin mining fits.



Is it wasteful to use electricity mining bitcoin? As the Biden Administration settles into power with an ambitious agenda around clean energy, notably promising to eliminate carbon emissions from the US power generation sector by 2035, the question of bitcoin mining and it’s ever-growing use of energy bubbles up once more.

In this episode of ‘On Purpose, With Tyrone Ross,’ Harry Sudock, VP of strategy at GRIID Infrastructure joins the show to discuss the modern energy landscape, how far we’ve come and where bitcoin mining can fit into a sustainable energy system.

The greatest number of people living in poverty are children, we need to change that. If you can, get involved and give back to Love and Light. I appreciate you!

Other Episodes



Continue Reading


Deutsche Bank Quietly Plans to Offer Crypto Custody, Prime Brokerage- CoinDesk

The bank’s game plan was hidden in plain sight in a widely overlooked report by the World Economic Forum.



The bank’s game plan was hidden in plain sight in a widely overlooked report by the World Economic Forum.

Deutsche Bank headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany (Thomas Lohnes/Getty Images)

Feb 13, 2021 at 2:10 a.m. UTCUpdated Feb 13, 2021 at 2:18 a.m. UTC

Deutsche Bank Quietly Plans to Offer Crypto Custody, Prime Brokerage

Deutsche Bank has joined the growing ranks of large financial institutions exploring cryptocurrency custody, with aspirations to offer high-touch services to hedge funds that invest in the asset class.

The Deutsche Bank Digital Asset Custody prototype aims to develop “a fully integrated custody platform for institutional clients and their digital assets providing seamless connectivity to the broader cryptocurrency ecosystem,” according to a little-noticed report by the World Economic Forum, host of the annual gathering of muckety-mucks in Davos, Switzerland.

In a passage buried on page 23 of the December 2020 report, Germany’s largest bank says it plans to create a trading and token issuance platform, bridging digital assets with traditional banking services, and managing the array of digital assets and fiat holdings in one easy-to-use platform.

Big banks are now announcing plans to enter crypto custody on an almost daily basis, with Bank of New York Mellon, the world’s largest custodian bank, joining the party earlier this week.

U.S. banks were given some regulatory clarity thanks to last year’s interpretation letters from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In Germany, firms are queuing up to get their hands on special crypto custody licenses from the country’s regulator, BaFIN.

Deutsche, the world’s 21st largest bank, said it aims to “ensure the safety and accessibility of assets for clients by offering an institutional-grade hot/cold storage solution with insurance-grade protection.” No specific cryptocurrencies or tokens are mentioned.

The digital asset custody platform would be launched in stages. It would eventually provide clients with the ability to buy and sell digital assets via a partnership with prime brokers (which act sort of like concierges for hedge funds), issuers and vetted exchanges.

The bank says it would also provide “value-added services such as taxation, valuation services and fund administration, lending, staking and voting, and provide an open-banking platform to allow onboarding of third-party providers.”

The service would be aimed at asset managers, wealth managers, family offices, corporates and digital funds, the bank said.

In terms of a business model, the bank would start out collecting custody fees, it said, later charging fees for tokenization and trading.

Deutsche said it has completed a proof of concept and is aiming for a minimum viable product in 2021, while exploring global client interest for a pilot initiative.

The bank’s press office could not be reached for comment Friday evening. A spokesperson had declined to comment on potential plans for a digital asset custody business when contacted last week by CoinDesk.



Continue Reading


Crunchbase14 hours ago

Square Rolls Up Afterpay As BNPL Market Stays Hot

Payments platform Square plans to buy Afterpay, an Australian buy now, pay later service, in an all-stock deal valued at...

Bioengineer20 hours ago

$1 million grant to address cold storage logistics in vaccine delivery

Credit: Penn State College of Engineering COVID-19 vaccines have been tested, validated and administered to millions of people around the

Cointelegraph4 days ago

The future of DeFi is spread across multiple blockchains

Creating interoperability, not competition: Multichain solutions will positively impact the blockchain space in terms of accessibility, innovation and economic viability.

Ventureburn4 days ago

ZwartTech launches Talent Foundation to equip Africans with digital skills

Lagos-based ZwartTech has announced the launch of its new edtech, Zwart Talent Foundation (ZTF) in a statement on 30 July...

CNBC6 days ago


Corporate Company Earnings, Find Earnings Per Share and Earnings History Online

Bioengineer7 days ago

Reduced microbial stability linked to soil carbon loss in active layer under alpine permafrost degra

Credit: NIEER Chinese researchers have recently discovered links between reduction in microbial stability and soil carbon loss in the active

Reuters1 week ago

Chipmaker TSMC says too early to say on Germany expansion

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co Ltd (TSMC) (2330.TW) said on Monday that it was too early to say whether it will...

Bioengineer1 week ago

SNMMI Image of the Year: PET imaging measures cognitive impairment in COVID-19 patients

Credit: G Blazhenets et al., Department of Nuclear Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of

Techcrunch1 week ago

The DL on CockroachDB – TechCrunch

As college students at Berkeley, Spencer Kimball and Peter Mattis created a successful open-source graphics program, GIMP, which got the...

CNBC1 week ago

International: Top News And Analysis

CNBC International is the world leader for news on business, technology, China, trade, oil prices, the Middle East and markets.


    Select language