<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/04/Curve-Finance-crypto.png?x-oss-process=image/auto-orient,1/interlace,1/resize,w_1440,h_1440/quality,q_95/format,jpg" alt="" original-src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/04/Curve-Finance-crypto.png"/></p>
<p>Curve Finance 创始人迈克尔·埃戈罗夫提出了一种新的方式来处理 LlamaLend 上大约 70 万美元的不良债务，他认为这个问题应该通过市场定价来解决，而不是通过协议救助。</p>
<p>该提案引入了一种类似期权支付的结构，允许债务在市场参与者之间交易和吸收，而不是在用户之间进行社会化分摊。</p>
<p>这个想法出现在去中心化金融借贷平台面临如何处理清算短缺的压力之际，而不削弱对治理系统的信任或给代币持有者带来突发损失。</p>
<h2>一种市场驱动的协议救助替代方案</h2>
<p>埃戈罗夫提案的核心是一个将不良债务转换为可交易索赔的机制。</p>
<p>债务不会强迫协议或其社区承担全部短缺，而是会在二级市场上定价和出售。</p>
<p>在实践中，这意味着投资者可以以折扣价购买困境中的头寸，有效地承担恢复的风险，以换取潜在的收益。</p>
<p>该结构类似于期权式支付，买家获得未来偿还结果的风险敞口，但以反映不确定性的较低入场价格。</p>
<p>与传统救助模型的关键区别在于不需要集体国库干预。</p>
<p>在早期的去中心化金融事件中，例如最近的 KelpDAO 攻击，类似的损失通常通过治理批准的资金注入或社会化损失机制来处理，协议在其用户基础上吸收影响。</p>
<p>埃戈罗夫的方法则依赖于自愿参与。然而，如果市场对债务赋予价值，无论多小，这一价格发现过程将决定结果。</p>
<p>这避免了治理投票强加的固定减记，而是用持续的交易动态取而代之。</p>
<h2>与 Aave 救助方法的对比</h2>
<p>该提案引起关注，因为它与 Aave（最大的去中心化借贷协议之一）之前处理类似压力事件的方式形成鲜明对比。</p>
<p>在早期的不良债务情况下，Aave 的治理批准使用协议储备来覆盖损失并稳定用户头寸。</p>
<p>这种方法优先考虑维持流动性信心，并确保存款人得到补偿，即使这意味着使用共享资金。</p>
<p>埃戈罗夫的模型则朝着相反的方向发展。</p>
<p>它不是将损失共同化，而是将其隔离为一个可以定价、交易和被外部资本吸收的独立金融工具。</p>
<p>LlamaLend 的 70 万美元短缺相对于大型借贷平台所面临的系统性协议风险来说相对较小，但它已成为替代解决方法的有用测试案例。</p>
<p>规模很重要，因为它允许在不威胁更广泛流动性条件的情况下进行实验。</p>
<h2>为什么埃戈罗夫的提案类似于期权定价</h2>
<p>“期权式” 框架源于提议解决方案的不对称支付结构。</p>
<p>困境债务的买家将提前支付折扣价，其回报取决于最终恢复的债务金额。</p>
<p>如果恢复高于预期，买家将从购买价格与偿还价值之间的差额中获利。如果恢复较低，他们将承担损失。</p>
<p>这与金融期权的风险特征相似，支付取决于不确定的未来结果，而不是固定的偿还计划。</p>
<p>通过这种方式构建不良债务，系统有效地将会计问题转变为定价问题。</p>
<p>市场实时决定这些损失的价值，而不是决定损失是否应该被吸收或重新分配。</p>
<p>这篇文章最初发表于 Invezz，标题为《Curve 创始人提出期权式支付以解决 70 万美元 LlamaLend 不良债务》。</p>

GBTC

BITB

BRRR

<p>Curve Finance 创始人迈克尔·埃戈罗夫（Michael Egorov）提出了一种新方法，以解决 LlamaLend 上约 70 万美元的不良债务，他建议市场定价应解决这一问题，而不是依赖协议救助。他的提案引入了一种期权式的支付结构，允许市场参与者交易这些债务。这种方法与传统的救助措施形成对比，因为它将损失孤立为可交易的索赔，使得在没有集体国库干预的情况下实现价格发现。埃戈罗夫的模型旨在将不良债务转变为定价问题，让市场实时确定损失的价值</p>

<p><img src="https://imageproxy.pbkrs.com/https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/04/Curve-Finance-crypto.png" alt="" original-src="https://invezz-wp-media.lon1.digitaloceanspaces.com/2026/04/Curve-Finance-crypto.png"/></p>
<p>Curve Finance founder Michael Egorov has put forward a new way of dealing with roughly $700,000 in bad debt on LlamaLend, arguing that the issue should be resolved through market pricing rather than a protocol bailout.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>Curve Finance 创始人迈克尔·埃戈罗夫提出了一种新的方式来处理 LlamaLend 上大约 70 万美元的不良债务，他认为这个问题应该通过市场定价来解决，而不是通过协议救助。</p>
</div><p>The proposal introduces a structure that resembles an options-style payoff, allowing the debt to be traded and absorbed by market participants instead of being socialised across users.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该提案引入了一种类似期权支付的结构，允许债务在市场参与者之间交易和吸收，而不是在用户之间进行社会化分摊。</p>
</div><p>The idea arrives at a time when DeFi lending platforms continue to face pressure over how to handle liquidation shortfalls without weakening trust in governance systems or placing sudden losses on token holders.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这个想法出现在去中心化金融借贷平台面临如何处理清算短缺的压力之际，而不削弱对治理系统的信任或给代币持有者带来突发损失。</p>
</div><h2>A market-driven alternative to protocol bailouts</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>一种市场驱动的协议救助替代方案</h2>
</div><p>At the centre of Egorov’s proposal is a mechanism that converts the bad debt into a tradable claim.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>埃戈罗夫提案的核心是一个将不良债务转换为可交易索赔的机制。</p>
</div><p>Instead of forcing the protocol or its community to cover the full shortfall, the debt would be priced and sold in a secondary market.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>债务不会强迫协议或其社区承担全部短缺，而是会在二级市场上定价和出售。</p>
</div><p>In practice, this means investors could purchase the distressed position at a discount, effectively taking on the risk of recovery in exchange for potential upside.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在实践中，这意味着投资者可以以折扣价购买困境中的头寸，有效地承担恢复的风险，以换取潜在的收益。</p>
</div><p>The structure resembles an option-like payoff, where buyers gain exposure to future repayment outcomes but at a reduced entry price reflecting uncertainty.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该结构类似于期权式支付，买家获得未来偿还结果的风险敞口，但以反映不确定性的较低入场价格。</p>
</div><p>The key difference from traditional bailout models is that no collective treasury intervention is required.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>与传统救助模型的关键区别在于不需要集体国库干预。</p>
</div><p>In earlier DeFi incidents, like the recent KelpDAO exploit, similar losses have often been handled through governance-approved fund injections or socialised loss mechanisms, where the protocol absorbs the impact across its user base.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在早期的去中心化金融事件中，例如最近的 KelpDAO 攻击，类似的损失通常通过治理批准的资金注入或社会化损失机制来处理，协议在其用户基础上吸收影响。</p>
</div><p>Egorov’s approach instead relies on voluntary participation. If the market assigns value to the debt, however small, that price discovery process determines the outcome.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>埃戈罗夫的方法则依赖于自愿参与。然而，如果市场对债务赋予价值，无论多小，这一价格发现过程将决定结果。</p>
</div><p>This avoids fixed write-offs imposed by governance votes and replaces them with continuous trading dynamics.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这避免了治理投票强加的固定减记，而是用持续的交易动态取而代之。</p>
</div><h2>Contrast with Aave’s bailout approach</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>与 Aave 救助方法的对比</h2>
</div><p>The proposal has drawn attention because it sharply contrasts with how Aave, one of the largest decentralised lending protocols, has previously handled comparable stress events.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>该提案引起关注，因为它与 Aave（最大的去中心化借贷协议之一）之前处理类似压力事件的方式形成鲜明对比。</p>
</div><p>In earlier bad debt situations, Aave governance approved the use of protocol reserves to cover losses and stabilise user positions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>在早期的不良债务情况下，Aave 的治理批准使用协议储备来覆盖损失并稳定用户头寸。</p>
</div><p>That approach prioritised maintaining liquidity confidence and ensuring that depositors were made whole, even if it meant using shared funds.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这种方法优先考虑维持流动性信心，并确保存款人得到补偿，即使这意味着使用共享资金。</p>
</div><p>Egorov’s model moves in the opposite direction.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>埃戈罗夫的模型则朝着相反的方向发展。</p>
</div><p>Instead of mutualising losses, it isolates them into a separate financial instrument that can be priced, traded, and absorbed by external capital.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>它不是将损失共同化，而是将其隔离为一个可以定价、交易和被外部资本吸收的独立金融工具。</p>
</div><p>LlamaLend’s $700,000 shortfall is relatively small compared to systemic protocol risks seen in larger lending platforms, but it has become a useful test case for alternative resolution methods.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>LlamaLend 的 70 万美元短缺相对于大型借贷平台所面临的系统性协议风险来说相对较小，但它已成为替代解决方法的有用测试案例。</p>
</div><p>The scale matters because it allows experimentation without threatening broader liquidity conditions.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>规模很重要，因为它允许在不威胁更广泛流动性条件的情况下进行实验。</p>
</div><h2>Why Egorov’s proposal resembles options pricing</h2>
<div class="lb-trans"><h2>为什么埃戈罗夫的提案类似于期权定价</h2>
</div><p>The “option-like” framing comes from the asymmetric payoff structure of the proposed solution.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>“期权式” 框架源于提议解决方案的不对称支付结构。</p>
</div><p>Buyers of the distressed debt would pay a discounted price upfront, with their return dependent on how much of the debt is eventually recovered.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>困境债务的买家将提前支付折扣价，其回报取决于最终恢复的债务金额。</p>
</div><p>If recovery is higher than expected, buyers profit from the difference between the purchase price and repayment value. If recovery is low, they absorb the loss.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>如果恢复高于预期，买家将从购买价格与偿还价值之间的差额中获利。如果恢复较低，他们将承担损失。</p>
</div><p>This mirrors the risk profile of financial options, where the payoff depends on uncertain future outcomes rather than fixed repayment schedules.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这与金融期权的风险特征相似，支付取决于不确定的未来结果，而不是固定的偿还计划。</p>
</div><p>By structuring bad debt this way, the system effectively transforms an accounting problem into a pricing problem.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>通过这种方式构建不良债务，系统有效地将会计问题转变为定价问题。</p>
</div><p>Instead of deciding whether losses should be absorbed or redistributed, the market determines the value of those losses in real time.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>市场实时决定这些损失的价值，而不是决定损失是否应该被吸收或重新分配。</p>
</div><p>The post Curve founder proposes option-like payoff for $700K LlamaLend bad debt appeared first on Invezz</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>这篇文章最初发表于 Invezz，标题为《Curve 创始人提出期权式支付以解决 70 万美元 LlamaLend 不良债务》。</p>
</div>

Curve founder proposes option-like payoff for $700K LlamaLend bad debt

invezz

Grayscale Bitcoin Trust BTC - ETF

Bitwise Bitcoin ETF

CoinShares Bitcoin ETF

VanEck Bitcoin ETF

Franklin Bitcoin ETF

ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF

WisdomTree Bitcoin Fund

ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF

Invesco Galaxy Bitcoin ETF

Fidelity Wise Origin Bitcoin Fund - ETF

iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF

Curve 创始人提议为 70 万美元的 LlamaLend 坏账提供类似期权的偿付方案