2025-12-07 05:40:51

Here's something people miss: whether accounts are linked, or there are shadow positions sitting off-chain—none of that actually touches what happened with Celsius on a certain lending protocol.

Celsius went underwater. The protocol? Stayed solvent. Why? Forced collateralization. That's the whole point of how these DeFi systems are supposed to work. The protocol didn't eat Celsius's losses because the collateral was already there, locked up.

Linking accounts or tracking off-chain exposure might matter for other reasons, sure. But when it comes to protocol-level risk? The collateral mechanism already did its job. That's the firewall.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

16 Likes

Reward
16
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

RiddleMaster

· 11h ago

Simply put, it was the collateral mechanism that saved everyone; Celsius brought about its own downfall and the protocol is not to blame.

View OriginalReply0

TheShibaWhisperer

· 12h ago

To put it simply, it's the collateral mechanism coming to the rescue. In the Celsius case, the protocol was doing just fine—this is what DeFi is supposed to be like.

View OriginalReply0

RamenDeFiSurvivor

· 12h ago

To put it plainly, the collateral firewall held up—Celsius blew itself up playing around, but the protocol itself was fine. That's just absurd.

View OriginalReply0

GasFeeCrying