- Spark says its stricter ETH risk settings helped preserve withdrawal liquidity while Aave’s ETH markets became locked at full utilization.
- The statement came from monetsupply.eth, who argued that Spark’s less popular approach has now proven the safer one.
Spark is making a pointed case that restraint, while costly in quieter markets, may have been the right decision after all.
In a public post, monetsupply.eth said Spark’s risk framework has long been built around one priority: user safety. That, he wrote, is why Spark deprecated rsETH in January, along with other low-usage assets, and why the protocol has continued tightening collateral settings and feature design over time rather than loosening them to win more leveraged demand.
Spark says tighter ETH settings cost revenue but preserved liquidity
The same approach shaped SparkLend’s ETH market. According to monetsupply.eth, Spark deliberately kept a high maximum borrow rate on ETH, even though the choice was unpopular with ETH loopers and likely cost the protocol meaningful business and revenue over the past year.
That trade-off became more obvious as Aave cut ETH max borrow rates to 10% or less, making its markets more attractive to aggressive leverage users. Spark’s argument now is that the revenue sacrifice was worth it.
Under the current conditions, SparkLend still has enough ETH liquidity for withdrawals, while Aave markets across Mainnet, Arbitrum, Plasma, Mantle and Base are effectively locked as utilization has climbed to the limit.
Spark warns ETH illiquidity now poses a deeper safety risk
Spark’s criticism is not just about market competition. Monetsupply.eth said ETH illiquidity is a serious protocol risk because ETH is a core collateral asset. If utilization reaches 100%, then liquidations of ETH-backed positions cannot take place smoothly.
That, in Spark’s view, turns a liquidity crunch into a structural danger. Monetsupply.eth warned that with current conditions on Aave, a 15% to 20% drop in ETHUSD could lead to significant bad debt accumulation, even before accounting for any additional damage tied directly to the rsETH exploit.
The point was blunt enough. Spark is not simply saying its market remained more liquid. It is saying that a conservative framework, one that looked uncompetitive in calmer conditions, may now be the difference between a stressed lending market and one that starts breaking under pressure.
