Comparison table
XPower Banq compared with major lending protocols across the dimensions that matter most.
Overall
| Dimension | Compound V3 | Aave V3 | MakerDAO | Liquity | Euler V2 | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Pool | Pool | CDP | CDP | Pool | Pool |
| Liquidation model | Repayment | Repayment | Auction | Stability pool | Repayment | Debt assumption |
| Liquidator capital | Required | Required | Required | Pre-deposited | Required | Not required |
| Default LTV | 75% | 80% | 75% | 90.91% | up to 95% | 66.67% (170/255) |
| Health factor system | Yes | Yes | Yes (CR) | Yes (CR) | Yes | Yes |
Liquidation cascade resistance
| Mechanism | Compound | Aave | Maker | Liquity | Euler | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cascade attenuation | None | None | Partial | Yes (pool) | None | Yes (locks) |
| Locked positions | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Liquidation seniority | None | None | Partial | Yes | None | De facto (locks) |
Governance
| Mechanism | Compound | Aave | Maker | Liquity | Euler | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter bounds | None | None | None | Immutable | None | 0.5×–2× per cycle |
| Parameter transitions | Instant | Instant | Instant | n/a | Instant | Asymptotic |
| Veto mechanism | None | None | Limited | n/a | None | Yes (_GUARD_ROLE per action) |
| Rate limit | None | None | None | n/a | None | One change per cycle |
Position composability
| Mechanism | Compound | Aave | Maker | Liquity | Euler | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supply position is ERC20 | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes |
| Borrow position is ERC20 | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (inverted) |
| Borrow position transfer | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Vault is ERC4626 | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes |
Oracle
| Mechanism | Compound | Aave | Maker | Liquity | Euler | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source | Chainlink | Chainlink | Median | Chainlink | Chainlink + AMM | AMM or Chainlink per pool |
| Smoothing | None | None | None | None | TWAP | Log-space TWAP |
| Manipulation immunity | Block-level | Block-level | Block-level | Block-level | TWAP-window | Two-tick |
| Bidirectional spread | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
Sybil resistance
| Mechanism | Compound | Aave | Maker | Liquity | Euler | XPower Banq |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per-account caps | No | Yes (debt ceilings) | Yes (DC) | No | Yes | Yes |
| Capacity rate-limit | None | None | Static | None | Static | √(n+2) scaling |
| Beta-distributed function | No | No | No | No | No | Yes |
| Spam protection on public liquidation | Gas | Gas | Gas | Gas | Gas | Gas + PoW |
When XPower Banq is the right choice
- You value cascade protection and are willing to lock for it.
- You want predictable, slow governance — not "fast iteration."
- You're a keeper without large liquid capital.
- You're a developer who wants both supply and borrow as composable ERC20s.
- You're a long-term holder using lending as yield infrastructure.
When another protocol may serve you better
- You want maximum capital efficiency at any cost.
- You need to be able to repay your loan in the next block.
- You're trading short-term volatility and need fast position changes.
- You depend on flash-loan integrations against the protocol's view of price.
Where to go next
- Why XPower Banq — narrative version
- Risks — what the trade-offs cost