Yield IndexesNovember comparison

For the month of November, Coinchange has a higher average rate than the minimal and low risk indexes except for the 10 year treasury rate non-adjusted for inflation which is two tenth of a percent higher than Coinchange and has barely decreased since last month. Coinchange remain higher than the CeDeFi index while not having any lockups, minimum investments requirements and being fully liquid. DeFi lending index has gained two tenth of percent from October while the DeFi Minimum Risk Rate has increased due to USDT on AAVE recording high lending interest. The DeFi yield index has picked up from last month due to the increased volume and volatility caused by FTX/Alameda contagion in the market. 

We also saw the ripple effect that FTX had on the centralized lenders and hedge funds with bankruptcy filings one after the other throughout the month. We have one blog covering the FTX/Alameda early debacle and one explaining the difference between CeFi lending and DeFi lending. This led our CeFi Yield index to lose some of its components, mainly BlockFi and Circle Yield. The remaining CeFi yield index components increase the average rate of 1.06% from last month. 

The chart below provides a snapshot of the rate across indexes and standalone rate for the month of November. We then describe the component within each index and standalone rate via a legend. The methodology to calculate the rate is the monthly average over the time period (Nov 1-30) for USDC, USDT and DAI. The exceptions are the DeFi Minimal Risk Rate (DMRR) which uses a 30 day average TVL weighted 30 day average stablecoin lending rate, and Coinchange which uses a weighted average rate (explained dedicated section).

We organize the indexes into 3 categories of risk. 

• Minimal risk: Risk-Free Rate non-adjusted for inflation as well as DeFi Minimum Risk Rate fall under this category. 
• Low risk: DeFi Lending Index and Coinchange rate are parts of the low risk category.
• Medium to High risk: CeDeFi yield, CeFi yield and DeFi yield are found in this category.

‍

All Yield Index comparison - November

‍

Indexes legend Minimal Risk Indexes:DeFi Minimal Risk Rate (DMRR) 

Comment on the index:

AAVE rates for July, August, September and October have changed by a few tenth of percent due to rounding errors in average calculations.

• Calculation method: 30 day average TVL weighted 30 day average stablecoin lending rate (USDC, USDT, DAI)
• Index components: Compound on Ethereum and AAVE on Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism
• Requirements details: Markets are fully liquid (can be withdrawn within minutes) without minimum investment with highest liquidity in DeFi. 
• Risk information: The index reflects the minimum level of risk an investor in DeFi can take to earn yield. The methodology and reasoning behind the DMRR is explained at the bottom of the document and aims to function as a benchmark for DeFi, similarly to how the ‘Risk-free Rate’ functions for traditional finance.
• Data sources: For AAVE and Compound rates we use Dune analytics query. For the TVL we use the aggregate numbers for AAVE v1, 2, 3  from DeFi Llama CSV export. For Compound TVL we use Dune analytics query.

Risk-Free Rate non-adjusted for inflation

• Calculation method: 30 day average 10 year U.S Treasury note yield, non adjusted for inflation.
• Index components: 10 year U.S Treasury note rate, non adjusted for inflation. 
• Requirements details: Highest amount of liquidity in the investable landscape, redeemable when the U.S market is open. Minimum investment can vary  depending on broker & dealer but generally the minimum is 1 bond worth $1,000.
• Risk information: Investment product carrying the minimal amount of risk an investor is willing to take to earn yield in TradFi. It is used as a benchmark in the traditional market to calculate and compare investments against each other. 
• Data sources: We use the non adjusted for inflation 10 year U.S Treasury note from the U.S Department of the treasury website.

‍

Below is the historical performance of the indexes mentioned above since January.

Historical Minimal Risk Indexes comparisonLow Risk IndexesDeFi Lending Index 

Comment on the index:

AAVE and Venus rates for July, August, September and October have changed by a few tenth of percent due to rounding errors in average calculations.

• Calculation method: 30 day average stablecoin lending rate (USDC, USDT, DAI)
• Index components: Compound on Ethereum; AAVE on Ethereum, Avalanche, Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism; Venus on Binance Smart Chain
• Requirements details: The markets are fully liquid (can be withdrawn within minutes) without minimum investment and have among the highest liquidity in DeFi across networks. 
• Risk information: The main difference between the DMRR and DeFi lending index is the amount of risk taken via the component of the index. By adding more lending platforms to the index that still satisfy requirements, we gradually increase the risk of insolvency or risk of loss for the calculated rate. 
• Data sources: For AAVE and Compound rates we use Dune analytics query. For Venus rates we use DeFi Llama CSV export and manual recording for historical rates from Nanoly (H1 of 2022).

Coinchange Yield

• Calculation method: Weighted average stablecoin rate (USDC, USDT, DAI) across diversified & non-correlated DeFi strategies.
• Index components: Coinchange on Ethereum, Avalanche and Binance Smart Chain
• Requirements details: Coinchange does not have lockups or an investment minimum. Withdrawals are processed during the same day of the request. All funds are deployed in DeFi without CeFi counterparties and are fully on-chain. 
• Risk information: Coinchange’s strategies within each Earn account have protocol and blockchain diversification at the core. Strategies are non-correlated, meaning that it is diversified across market mechanisms as well. Learn more in our Asset Allocation Report - October and Asset Allocation Report - November.  
• Data sources: Directly pulled from Coinchange backend, the same rate as the one earned by Coinchange users.

Below is the historical performance of the indexes mentioned above since January.

Historical Low Risk Indexes comparisonMedium to High Risk Indexes:

‍

CeDeFi Yield Index 

• Calculation method: 30 day average stablecoin rate (USDC, USDT, DAI) 
• Index components: Centralized companies operating in Decentralized Finance to generate yield: Coinchange, Idle Finance, Spool Finance and Swissborg.
• Requirements details: All platforms do not have lockups or an investment minimum while having high liquidity, except for Swissborg rates. We chose the rate that does not require a stake of Swissborg’s token. They enable higher yield but require lockups of 12 months and its platform token to be staked in various amounts to get to a certain tier account providing increased yield and reduced fees. 
• Risk information: In this index the risk can vary from Low risk like Coinchange to medium and high risk with Swissborg or Spool Finance. The primary risks are bankruptcy due to poor asset management practices with either too much leverage or lack of safeguard measure in place.
• Data sources: Wayback Machine snapshots for some historical rates but not all components have allowed the Wayback Machine to capture snapshots of their website. Hence we mostly use the rates displayed on the component’s web UI every week to calculate a 30 day average while saving screenshots in the database as proof. 

DeFi Yield Index 

Comment on the index:

Yearn, Yield Yak and Autofarm rates for July, August, September and October have changed by a few tenth of percent due to rounding errors in average calculations.

• Calculation method: 30 day average stablecoin rate (USDC, USDT, DAI) 
• Index components: Decentralized platform offering yield or aggregating yield across protocols and platforms: Yearn Finance, Beefy Finance, Autofarm, Yield Yak
• Requirements details: None have lockups or an investment minimum. Only pools with high liquidity and safe protocols have been selected for each index component.
• Risk information: DeFi yield aggregators have varying degree of risk from medium to high depending on a multitude of factors such as: smart contract security, team relevancy, source of the yield generated, aggregation method for the yield, ownership and security of smart contracts. 
• Data sources: Yearn.Vision, maintained by Yearn.finance devs, is used to populate the rates. Displayed 30 day average rate on web UI is used for Beefy, while for Autofarm we manually record daily rates to calculate the 30 day average. Yield Yak rates are coming from DeFi Llama CSV export.    

CeFi Yield Index 

Comment on the index: 

Blockfi and Circle Yield have been removed from the index since the former filed for bankruptcy in November and Circle Yield stopped accepting new loans at the end of November. Starting in December, Maple Finance rate will not take Orthogonal lending pool rate into account as Maple stopped working with them due to a severe default and breach or agreement during November. TrueFi has seen 2 defaults on its BUSD pool late October and beginning of November. 

• Calculation method: 30 day average stablecoin rate (USDC, USDT, DAI)
• Index components: Centralized companies generating yield via lending interest, primarily: Nexo, TrueFi, Maple Finance public pool, Goldfinch senior pool. 
• Requirements details: Nexo does not have lockups or investment minimums but it has an investment maximum $100k after which, the rate decreases dramatically. This standard “retail rate” has been selected for the index. Nexo offers higher yield if choosing to earn in $NEXO rather than in kind along with holding a certain percentage of your portfolio value in the token indefinitely over time. Maple Finance pools selected are not permissioned to have the least amount of barriers to redeem funds. Goldfinch senior pool is selected because it has the lowest amount of risk and highest liquidity available.
• Risk information: Due to the business model of CeFi platform they carry significant amounts of risk, such as: borrowers default, bankruptcy risks, no asset control and low to no transparency, just to name a few. We have seen the extent of the damage this can cause with the bankruptcy of Celsius, Voyager, YouHodler, BlockFi and perhaps Genesis in December.
• Data sources: Wayback Machine snapshots for some historical rates but not all components have allowed it to capture snapshots of their website. We also use the rates displayed on the component’s web UI every week to calculate a 30 day average while saving screenshots in the database as proof. Lastly we use DeFi Llama CSV export when available and if accurate as per numbers displayed on the components UI.  

 Below is the historical performance of the indexes mentioned above since January.

Historical Medium to High Risk Indexes comparisonPerformance OverviewHistorical commentary:

DeFi related indexes (DeFi MRR, DeFi lending, DeFi Yield) had their rates decrease in April, continued in May with the Terra/Luna meltdown and then stabilized in July. DeFi Yield index, on the medium to high risk end, started its decrease in January due to the overall deleveraging in the markets (except for Terra related strategies) and continued to decrease until October, while it had a short lived uptick in July. 

Regarding CeFi related indexes (CeDeFi Yield, CeFi yield, Coinchange) they followed the same pattern in general as the DeFi yield index except for Coinchange which saw its rate increase up until March. CeFi yield index rate started to stabilize in June and picked up in August. On the other hand, CeDeFi and Coinchange stabilized their rate in July/August. 

Current performance commentary:

Coinchange saw its rate increase 4 times in September and sustained this rate up until November. This was the effect of the new non-correlated strategy that was launched in September. During the month of November, the strategy’s algorithm determined that with current market conditions it should be rebalanced and thus led to the decrease recorded. We further explore our strategies diversification and allocation across protocol types in our  Asset Allocation Report - October and Asset Allocation Report - November.

CeFi Yield index remains close to its rate from August, either showing continued borrowing appetite by hedge funds and traders or unsustainable rates that can soon turn into defaults (i.e TrueFi and Maple borrower defaults).

CeDeFi yield index barely makes it above the DeFi Minimum Risk Rate and the DeFi lending index rate. All three are recording a slow but steady increase in the rates since September due to borrowing activity slowly increasing again.  

The chart below represents the comparison of historical rates across indexes since January 2022 and aims to provide some perspective on performance over time. For full historical performance of Coinchange Earn Account check here.

‍

Historical All Index comparisonMethodology for DeFi Minimum Risk Rate

A benchmark is a standard against which something is compared. In finance, investors use benchmarks to measure the performance of securities, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, portfolios, or other investment instruments.

Generally, broad market and market-segment stock and bond indexes are used for this purpose. If there is an investment instrument, there is a benchmark to compare it to, otherwise comparison across investment products alone does not provide the full picture.

In crypto, benchmarks do exist as well. The most common are the top 10 or 15 cryptocurrency indexes by market capitalization. DeFi benchmarks exist as well in the form of indexes, most of the time tracking the market capitalization of top DeFi governance token, which can be found for DeFi sub-segments such as DeFi yield, Oracle, GameFi, NFT marketplace, etc.

The benchmark we are seeking here, is one that could serve the same purpose as the “risk-free rate” that exists in traditional finance. In theory, the risk-free rate is the minimum return an investor expects for any investment while not accepting additional risk unless the potential rate of return is greater than the risk-free rate. Determination of a proxy for the risk-free rate of return will depend mainly on the credibility, liquidity size of the product, and availability. In practice, although a completely risk-free rate does not exist, the interest rate on a 10 year U.S. bond is often used as the benchmark for most investors while foreign investors might need to factor in the currency risk. 

In DeFi we can’t name such a benchmark “risk-free rate” since the technology it is built on is rather new and hence does not carry the same credibility as US T-Bill. Hence using “DeFi minimal risk rate” is more suited. Like in the TradFi market, DeFi has large investors seeking low risk returns in non-derivative markets which have high levels of liquidity with full redemption intraday. Protocols that fit the requirement are lending and borrowing protocols as per Credmark research. We should only take into consideration the rate of return of stable assets as the risk-free rate in TradFi is denominated in dollars. 

Hence the minimal risk rate in DeFi could be determined by taking the TVL weighted average rate for USDC, USDT and DAI - as they are the most stable with highest liquidity - on AAVE and Compound - as they are the most secure and longest standing protocols in DeFi with highest Total Value Locked (TVL).