Ajna is a peer to pool, oracleless, permissionless lending protocol with no governance, accepting both fungible and non fungible tokens as collateral.

Joined November 2021
just wait until they find out about Ajna v3
What he forgot to mention is that Morpho can charge fees at the market level, allowing it to capture the economic value created by curators without bearing the cost of risk management. This means markets are neither neutral nor ownerless. Curators invest in building liquidity and managing risk, but Morpho retains the ability to extract a share of the revenue, compressing curator margins and accelerating competition toward zero profitability. This creates a fundamental misalignment: either Morpho monetizes and competes for the economics generated by curators, or it doesn't and must sustain its business through other revenue sources once incentives run out. Curators should own their market economics and capture fees from both lending and borrowing. Otherwise, they're building businesses on infrastructure that can tax away their margins. Full stop. This is why Paul is spooked about Aave V4.
2
3
219
Borrowers don’t need to watch the market for a better rate. Any lender can move their loan to a better price, and moving it resets the term. Lenders compete, and borrowers get better terms.
1
6
368
No credit desk can model a contract that a token vote might rewrite next week.
1
2
8
645
When a loan defaults without enough collateral to cover it, the lender is repaid first. Whatever is left is split between the person who called the loan and the pool.
1
1
8
635
it's as simple as that
1
4
388
When a loan defaults without enough collateral to cover it, the lender is repaid first. Whatever is left is split between the person who called the loan and the pool.
1
4
293
The point of DeFi was never to find better gatekeepers It was to need fewer of them
2
8
443
Institutions price lending on terms - how long the loan runs - when it has to be repaid - how the lender gets out Most DeFi lending has no terms, so here’s how the next version of Ajna brings fixed terms onchain 🧵
1
2
5
467
4/ Here’s an example. Lisa deposits 1,200 USDC and two borrowers draw 1,100 of it. On day 10 she marks her deposit for withdrawal, and keeps earning while the loans run. As each loan is repaid, she withdraws. She ends up with 1,214.40 USDC, her deposit plus interest.
1
2
47
5/ A credit desk can’t underwrite a loan whose rules a token vote might change next week. A fixed term, a predictable exit, and rules that don’t change is a loan institutions can actually price.
1
3
46
Anyone can move a borrower’s loan to a better price. If a new lender offers better terms, they can move the loan up in the same transaction, and the borrower gets a fresh 30-day term. Competition between lenders works in the borrower’s favor.
1
6
352
Convenience comes from concentration. Concentration is where the risk is.
2
8
376
The Fed wants to hold stablecoin issuers to published standards. DeFi lending is still running on oracles and governance votes. “Too interconnected to fail” is being rebuilt onchain, without the capital buffers.
3
361
The next version of Ajna removes the LUP, the Fenwick tree, the loan queue, Dutch auctions, and origination fees Less machinery = fewer ways to break it
1
1
10
760
Regulators are telling stablecoin issuers to write the rules down. DeFi can go further and write them into the contract.
2
4
395
Oracles are expensive, which means most assets don’t get a lending market. Anyone can launch one for any asset on Ajna. DeFi is for everyone.
2
9
418
Immutability has a cost. If a flaw can’t be patched, it can only be replaced by a new version users choose to move to. We think change should be opt-in.
2
1
7
524