The DeFi lending market is highly competitive, with various protocols engaging in price wars to attract users. However, there are very few platforms that can truly balance low interest rates, security, and usability. Today, I will compare several mainstream BNB chain lending protocols to see why there is only one optimal solution for arbitraging $1 USD.
First, let's discuss the core competitiveness of lending protocols. The first is the interest rate, which directly determines your arbitrage space. The second is security, which includes smart contract audits, liquidation mechanisms, and the depth of the liquidity pool. The third is the variety of assets; the more collateral types supported, the greater the choices available to users. The fourth is user experience, including whether the interface is user-friendly, the operations are smooth, and customer service is responsive in a timely manner. The fifth is additional returns, such as token rewards and fee rebates.
From the perspective of interest rates, currently, the cheapest way to borrow USD1 on the BNB chain is through the low-interest protocol we are discussing today. Borrowing USD1 against BTCB collateral has an interest rate as low as 0.39%, with common pools between 1% to 3%. The situation with BNB collateral is even more extreme, with some pools charging as low as 0.03%, essentially free borrowing. Collateralizing yield-bearing assets like PT-USDe also only incurs 1.97% to 2.95%. This interest rate level is among the best in the entire DeFi market.
Compared to Venus Protocol, while they also support USD1 lending, the interest rates generally range between 4% and 6%, making the cost of borrowing USD1 against BNB or BTCB nearly double that of the former. This means that for borrowing 10,000 USD1, you would have to pay 400-600 USD in interest on Venus, while on that low-interest platform, it only requires 100-300 USD, leading to a difference of several thousand USD over the year. This does not even account for the 20% returns from Binance's financial products, where the interest rate gap directly determines the size of the arbitrage opportunity.
Aave's performance on the BNB chain is average; its interest rates are slightly lower than Venus's but higher than low-interest platforms, ranging from about 3% to 5%. Additionally, Aave's support for the emerging stablecoin USD1 is not very proactive, with many pools lacking sufficient liquidity, making it frequently impossible to borrow large amounts of USD1. From a practical perspective, Aave is more suitable for borrowing mainstream stablecoins like USDT and USDC, while borrowing USD1 should be done through specifically optimized protocols.
Now, looking at security, this low-interest protocol claims to have been audited by top security firms like Peckshield, Veridise, Slowmist, and Blocksec, with open-source contract code and a reasonably designed liquidation mechanism. From the historical records, although there was a liquidity crunch due to high utilization last November, there were no incidents of funds being stolen or contract vulnerabilities. Users' collateral and borrowings are within controllable limits.
Venus has encountered several security issues. In September 2025, Venus experienced a flash loan attack amounting to 27 million USD; although the hacker ultimately failed, it exposed potential risks at the contract level. Earlier, Venus also had an incident where the liquidation mechanism malfunctioned, resulting in significant user losses. Although the team later remedied these issues, such a history raises some concerns.
Aave's security is relatively better, being the big brother of DeFi lending, with contracts tested through years of real-world use. However, Aave operates on the V3 version on the BNB chain, which is a branch of multi-chain deployment. Theoretically, risk isolation is done well, but it also means that the team's attention may not be fully on the BNB chain, and if problems arise, the response speed might not match that of native protocols.
In terms of asset variety, low-interest protocols support dozens of assets for collateral, including BTCB, BNB, ETH, slisBNB, PT-USDe, asUSDF, USDe, solvBTC, and more, covering various categories like blue-chip coins, liquid staking tokens, and yield-generating stablecoins. This richness is among the top tier on the BNB chain. Venus also supports a considerable number of assets, but its response to new assets is slower; popular assets like PT-USDe are not yet available. Aave primarily focuses on mainstream assets and does not support niche tokens.
In terms of user experience, the interface design of low-interest protocols is relatively simple, divided into two main areas: CDP Zone and Lending Zone. New users might feel a bit confused at first, but after watching a tutorial for a few minutes, they will understand. The interface of Venus is more traditional, resembling Compound, and the operational logic is quite intuitive. Aave's interface is the most modern, but the numerous features can make it seem complex, causing new users to easily get lost.
Regarding additional earnings, low-interest protocols have their governance tokens, and holding and staking them can yield protocol income dividends, with weekly returns reaching over 38%, along with various liquidity mining rewards. Venus also offers XVS token rewards, but the yield fluctuates significantly, sometimes high and sometimes low. Aave, on the BNB chain, basically has no additional token rewards and purely earns from the lending interest spread.
In terms of liquidity depth, the USD1 borrowing pool of the low-interest protocol has a total liquidity exceeding 60 million USD, with the BTCB collateral pool having over 18 million, and the BNB pool also having several million, sufficient to support large borrowings. Venus's USD1 pool data is not very transparent; based on on-chain information, it appears to have liquidity of a few million USD, making it of medium scale. Aave's overall liquidity on the BNB chain is less than on the Ethereum mainnet, and the USD1 pool is even more niche, possibly only having a few hundred thousand USD.
Another important point is the liquidation mechanism. The liquidation line for low-interest protocols is a collateral ratio of 150%, meaning that when the value of your collateral falls to 150% of the borrowed value, it will be liquidated. The liquidation penalty is approximately between 4.8% and 15%, which is relatively mild. Moreover, the protocol also offers a pre-liquidation option, allowing partial liquidation when the collateral ratio drops to 75%, with lower penalties, providing users with more buffer space.
However, Venus's liquidation mechanism is not as friendly, with a liquidation line of around 150%. The liquidation penalties can often reach 20% or more, and the speed of liquidation is very fast; once the price touches the liquidation line, positions can be immediately liquidated, leaving users with very little time to react. This can easily lead to panic selling in extreme market conditions, further exacerbating market volatility.
Aave's liquidation mechanism is a benchmark in the industry, using a health factor model where a value below 1 will trigger liquidation. The penalty is around 10% to 15%, and there is a flash loan liquidation mechanism to ensure the safety of the liquidity pool. However, Aave's issue is that its parameter adjustments are very conservative, usually requiring higher collateral ratios, resulting in lower leverage than other protocols, sacrificing capital efficiency.
Considering the above aspects, if your goal is to borrow USD1 at a low interest rate to arbitrage on Binance, that low-interest protocol is almost the only reasonable choice. It has the lowest rates, sufficient liquidity, good security, a wide variety of assets, and token rewards. Venus and Aave each have their advantages, but in this specific scenario, their competitiveness is clearly insufficient.
Of course, that doesn’t mean other protocols are without merit. If you want to borrow ultra-mainstream stablecoins like USDT and USDC, Venus and Aave may be better choices, as they have deeper liquidity for these assets and higher borrowing limits. If you pursue extreme security and are not concerned about interest rate costs, Aave is definitely the first choice, as it is a living relic of DeFi lending.
That said, DeFi is all about composition, and it isn’t necessary to choose one or the other. A smart approach is to diversify positions across different protocols, enjoying the low rates of low-interest protocols while also using Aave and Venus for some conservative allocations, thus spreading risk and maximizing returns.
From on-chain data, the TVL of the low-interest protocol has surpassed 1.7 billion USD, ranking second on the BNB chain, only behind PancakeSwap. This scale has proven the market's recognition. Furthermore, the protocol is continuously expanding; it recently launched a RWA (real-world asset) market, supporting tokenized investments in U.S. Treasury bonds and AAA-rated CLOs, offering a risk-free annual return of 3% to 5%, which is a very rare asset class in the crypto market.
Although Venus is also trying to innovate, it hasn't made significant strides and primarily follows the traditional lending model. Aave, on the other hand, has introduced many features on the Ethereum mainnet, such as flash loans and credit delegation, but these functionalities have not been fully realized on the BNB chain.
In conclusion, there is no absolute standard answer when it comes to choosing a lending protocol; it largely depends on your needs. If you are a newcomer to DeFi looking for a straightforward way to arbitrage USD1, that low-interest platform is definitely the best entry point, with low rates, simple operations, and clear returns. If you are an experienced user pursuing complex strategy combinations, you can utilize several protocols to leverage their respective advantages.
One point to emphasize is that regardless of which protocol you choose, risk awareness must be maintained at all times. The DeFi world does not guarantee absolute safety, and even the best protocols can fail. Diversifying investments, controlling positions, and regular checks are fundamental skills, so never slack off.
The market is changing, and protocols are evolving. Today's optimal solutions do not guarantee the same for tomorrow. Continuous learning, keeping an eye on the dynamics of various protocols, and timely strategy adjustments are essential to remain undefeated in the fast-paced DeFi race.
#USD1理财最佳策略ListaDAO @ListaDAO $LISTA
