What to Know

  • Aave is considering a governance proposal to exit Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos.
  • The cleanup would affect about $98 million in deposits and retire low-adoption asset markets along with 21 expired Pendle principal tokens across 11 Aave deployments.
  • The six targeted chains each generate less than $5,000 in quarterly revenue, while Metis, Soneium and Aptos each bring in under $1,000.
  • The six deployments together represent less than 1% of Aave’s roughly $14 billion in assets.
  • Deposits have fallen sharply over six months, including a 95% drop on Soneium and a 94% decline in available liquidity on Aptos.
  • Aave would not forcibly close existing positions, but the plan would freeze new activity and make borrowing costly enough to encourage users to unwind voluntarily.
  • The proposal follows a broader discussion around requiring future deployments to commit to at least $2 million in annual revenue.

Aave Targets Low-Usage Deployments

Aave, the largest decentralized lending protocol, is weighing a governance proposal that would pull the protocol away from six low-usage blockchains as part of a wider effort to simplify its footprint and reduce exposure to markets that no longer justify their operating burden. The proposed exits would cover Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos, while also retiring low-adoption asset markets and 21 expired Pendle principal tokens across 11 Aave deployments.

The plan would affect about $98 million in deposits, but the clearest rationale is not the headline deposit figure. The core issue is that the targeted deployments are producing very little revenue compared with the operational attention they require. Each of the six chains now generates less than $5,000 in quarterly revenue, while Metis, Soneium and Aptos each bring in under $1,000. For a protocol that manages risk across many assets, oracle feeds and liquidation systems, those figures point to an unfavorable cost-to-benefit equation.

In practical terms, maintaining a lending market is not passive. Aave deployments require reliable price feeds, liquidation monitoring, parameter management and continued governance oversight. When usage is thin, the same core risks remain, but the revenue available to compensate the protocol for that risk can become negligible. That is the economic gap the proposal seeks to close.

Revenue Gap Highlights Aave’s Chain Selection Problem

The contrast between Aave’s strongest markets and the six targeted deployments is stark. Aave’s Ethereum mainnet deployment generates more than $142 million a year, while Base generates about $4.7 million. Metis, by comparison, produces roughly $3,000. That spread underscores how uneven the economics of multichain expansion can become when user activity consolidates around a smaller number of venues.

Aave expanded across multiple chains during a period when decentralized finance protocols were competing for reach, liquidity and user growth. Multichain deployment can help a lending protocol meet users where they are, but it also creates fragmentation. If deposits, borrowing demand and liquidations do not develop at sufficient scale, the protocol can be left supporting infrastructure that delivers little direct return.

Market participants often view such retrenchment as a sign of maturity rather than retreat. In decentralized finance, growth strategies that prioritize deployment count can eventually collide with governance, security and operational costs. Aave’s proposed exit from these six chains suggests a more selective approach, where revenue, adoption and risk-adjusted value carry greater weight than simply being present across as many networks as possible.

Deposits Have Slumped Across the Six Chains

The proposal comes after a steep decline in deposits across the targeted deployments over six months. Soneium fell 95%, available liquidity on Aptos dropped 94%, zkSync declined 88% to about $844,000, Scroll fell 86% to roughly $2 million, Metis dropped 79%, and Sonic, the largest of the group, fell 74% to just under $8 million.

Taken together, the six chains hold a combined $13 million in deposits against Aave’s roughly $14 billion across 23 chains, based on DefiLlama data cited in the market discussion. That places them below 1% of the protocol’s assets. Even when the broader cleanup is described as affecting about $98 million in deposits, the specific deployments being shut down represent only a small share of Aave’s total base.

That scale matters because lending protocols depend on liquidity depth. Thin markets are often less attractive to borrowers because there may be limited capacity to borrow size without affecting rates. They may also be less attractive to suppliers if yields are not compelling. When both sides weaken, a lending market can enter a negative loop where lower liquidity leads to lower utility, which then further reduces participation.

How the Wind-Down Would Work

The proposal does not call for existing user positions to be forcibly closed. Instead, Aave would freeze the affected markets to new deposits, borrowing and collateral use. Supply and borrowing limits would be cut to a single token, 99% of borrower interest would be routed to Aave’s treasury, and a 5% base borrowing rate would be introduced.

The intended effect is to make it unattractive to remain in the affected markets while still giving users the ability to exit voluntarily. By raising the cost of borrowing and preventing fresh activity, the protocol would guide positions toward a gradual unwind rather than a sudden forced liquidation process. That distinction is important for user confidence, particularly in decentralized finance, where governance decisions can directly affect access to liquidity and collateral management.

Technical traders and DeFi users are likely to watch how smoothly the wind-down process unfolds if governance approval moves forward. A clean exit could strengthen the case for disciplined market management, while a disorderly process could raise questions about how protocols should responsibly retire deployments that no longer meet economic thresholds.

Falling Revenue Adds Pressure

The timing of the proposal also reflects pressure on Aave’s broader revenue line. Aave borrowers paid about $888 million in interest over the past year, but most of that amount flowed back to suppliers. Aave itself kept roughly $117 million, equal to about 13 cents of every dollar collected, according to DefiLlama figures cited in the market discussion.

Quarterly figures show a similar pattern. Gross revenue fell from $198 million in the first quarter to $156 million in the second quarter, a decline of a fifth. Third-quarter figures are one month old and running well below that pace, with liquidation fees standing out as the clearest casualty. Liquidation fees dropped from $27 million in the second quarter to under $200,000 so far.

Against that backdrop, deployments generating less than $5,000 a quarter become harder to defend. At Aave’s usual share of revenue, the protocol’s own take from a $5,000 quarter would amount to only a few hundred dollars. For deployments such as Metis, where quarterly revenue is under $1,000, the economics become even more difficult to justify when measured against the effort required to maintain safe lending infrastructure.

A Shift Toward Revenue Discipline

The governance proposal fits with a direction that had already been outlined months earlier. In December, the Aave Chan Initiative proposed rolling back deployments on zkSync, Metis and Soneium after describing them as having failed to demonstrate product-market fit. That discussion also pushed a rule requiring any future deployment to commit to at least $2 million in annual revenue.

Such a threshold would mark a more disciplined framework for expansion. Instead of treating every new chain as a strategic opportunity, Aave governance would demand clearer evidence that a deployment can support itself economically. For users and tokenholders, the approach may reduce unnecessary complexity and help focus resources on venues where borrowing, lending and collateral activity are more sustainable.

Risk reduction is also central to the argument. Low-revenue markets still require price feed reliability, liquidation readiness and parameter oversight. If a market contributes little revenue but adds operational and governance risk, the economic case for continuing support weakens. In that sense, the cost-cutting and risk-reduction arguments overlap rather than compete.

What It Means for DeFi Expansion

Aave’s proposed withdrawal may become a broader signal for decentralized finance protocols that expanded rapidly across networks. The multichain model remains important, but the market is increasingly distinguishing between strategic deployments and underused outposts. As liquidity concentrates, protocols may have to prune markets that do not generate enough activity to justify the burden of maintaining them.

For affected users, the key issue is position management. Since the plan does not require forced closures, users would have time to assess collateral, borrowing costs and withdrawal options. However, the proposed freeze on new activity and the introduction of a 5% base borrowing rate would create a strong incentive to unwind rather than wait.

For Aave governance, the decision will test whether the community is willing to prioritize financial discipline over network coverage. If approved, the exit from Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos would represent a notable recalibration of Aave’s expansion strategy and a message that low adoption, weak deposits and minimal revenue are no longer enough to sustain a deployment.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Which blockchains would Aave exit under the proposal?

The proposal would shut Aave deployments on Sonic, Scroll, zkSync, Metis, Soneium and Aptos.

How much in deposits would the broader cleanup affect?

The broader cleanup would affect about $98 million in deposits, while also retiring low-adoption asset markets and 21 expired Pendle principal tokens across 11 Aave deployments.

Why is Aave considering leaving these chains?

The main reason is weak economics. Each of the six deployments generates less than $5,000 in quarterly revenue, while Metis, Soneium and Aptos each bring in under $1,000.

How much of Aave’s total assets are on the targeted chains?

The six deployments represent less than 1% of Aave’s roughly $14 billion in assets, with the specific six chains holding a combined $13 million in deposits across Aave’s 23-chain footprint.

Would existing positions be forcibly closed?

No. Existing positions would not be forcibly closed. The markets would instead be frozen to new activity, and borrowing conditions would be adjusted to encourage users to unwind voluntarily.

What changes would be made to borrowing in the affected markets?

The plan would cut supply and borrowing limits to a single token, route 99% of borrower interest to Aave’s treasury and introduce a 5% base borrowing rate.

How have deposits changed on the targeted chains?

Deposits have fallen sharply over six months. Soneium dropped 95%, available liquidity on Aptos fell 94%, zkSync declined 88% to about $844,000, Scroll fell 86% to roughly $2 million, Metis dropped 79%, and Sonic fell 74% to just under $8 million.

How does this fit into Aave’s broader strategy?

The proposal reflects a shift toward revenue discipline and risk reduction. A previous governance discussion pushed for future deployments to commit to at least $2 million in annual revenue.

Why do low-revenue DeFi markets create risk?

Even low-usage markets require price feeds, liquidation systems and monitoring. If revenue is minimal, the protocol may be taking on operational complexity and risk without sufficient compensation.

Photo by Beto Gonsalvo on Pexels