Fungible Tokens (ERC-20s) excel at providing liquidity and risk standardization because their uniform value enables automated, high-throughput liquidation. For example, major lending protocols like Aave and Compound, which primarily use fungible collateral, have processed over $100B in total volume, leveraging price oracles like Chainlink for real-time valuation. This model supports high loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and deep liquidity pools, making it ideal for scalable, generalized lending markets.
LABS
Comparisons
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) vs Fungible Tokens as Collateral
A technical comparison for protocol architects and CTOs evaluating collateral types for loan origination. This analysis focuses on valuation mechanics, liquidation complexity, and risk management trade-offs in over-collateralized and under-collateralized models.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Collateral Conundrum in DeFi Lending
A foundational comparison of fungible and non-fungible tokens as collateral, analyzing their impact on protocol design, risk, and capital efficiency.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs like ERC-721s) take a different approach by unlocking capital from unique digital assets. Protocols like BendDAO (for CryptoPunks and BAYC) and JPEG'd leverage NFT floor price oracles and peer-to-pool models. This results in a trade-off of higher complexity: valuation is less precise (relying on floor prices vs. spot), liquidity is fragmented by collection, and liquidation mechanisms are slower and more manual, leading to higher volatility risks as seen in historical liquidity crunches.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital efficiency, high throughput, and risk predictability for a mainstream DeFi product, choose a fungible token model. If you prioritize catering to a niche, asset-rich community and enabling loans against illiquid holdings like high-value PFPs or real-world asset NFTs, an NFT-backed model is the necessary, albeit riskier, path. The decision fundamentally shapes your oracle requirements, liquidation engine, and target user base.
tldr-summary
NFTs vs Fungible Tokens as Collateral
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
A high-level comparison of asset types for DeFi lending, focusing on valuation, liquidity, and risk management trade-offs.
01
Fungible Tokens: Liquidity & Standardization
Specific advantage: Uniform value and deep liquidity pools (e.g., $10B+ in Aave, Compound). This enables automated, oracle-based price feeds for real-time risk assessment and high capital efficiency with standardized loan-to-value (LTV) ratios. This matters for high-volume, automated lending protocols where speed and predictable liquidation are critical.
02
Fungible Tokens: Capital Efficiency
Specific advantage: Enables composability across DeFi (e.g., using aDAI as collateral in Maker). This creates a capital flywheel where collateral can be re-deployed. This matters for yield-optimizing strategies and protocols building on a money-lego model, maximizing utility from a single asset position.
03
NFTs: Unlocking Idle Capital
Specific advantage: Monetizes high-value, illiquid assets like CryptoPunks, Bored Apes, or Art Blocks. Protocols like NFTfi and Arcade.xyz facilitate peer-to-peer or pooled lending against them. This matters for asset-rich, cash-poor holders who want liquidity without selling their blue-chip NFTs, tapping into a multi-billion dollar dormant asset class.
04
NFTs: Granular & Customizable Terms
Specific advantage: Supports peer-to-peer negotiation on loan terms (duration, LTV, interest) tailored to a specific asset's perceived value. This matters for unique, hard-to-price assets where automated oracles fail. It allows for underwriting based on collector reputation (e.g., BendDAO's time-based auctions) rather than just spot price.
05
Fungible Tokens: Primary Risk
Specific weakness: High correlation risk. During market downturns (e.g., May 2022, FTX collapse), collateral value and loan demand plummet simultaneously, causing systemic liquidations and potential insolvency. This matters for protocol stability, requiring robust stress-testing and conservative LTVs.
06
NFTs: Primary Risk
Specific weakness: Valuation complexity and illiquidity. Lack of continuous, reliable pricing leads to oracle manipulation risks and failed liquidations (e.g., BendDAO's crisis). This matters for protocol solvency, requiring innovative mechanisms like Dutch auctions or peer-to-peer pools to manage default risk.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: NFTs vs Fungible Tokens as Collateral
Direct comparison of key metrics for evaluating collateral types in DeFi protocols.
| Metric | Fungible Tokens (e.g., ETH, USDC) | Non-Fungible Tokens (e.g., CryptoPunks, BAYC) |
|---|---|---|
Price Oracle Reliability | High (Chainlink, Pyth) | Low (Floor pricing, rarity models) |
Liquidation Efficiency | Seconds (Automated via smart contracts) | Hours/Days (Manual auctions common) |
Loan-to-Value (LTV) Ratio | 70-90% (Standardized) | 30-50% (Highly variable) |
Collateral Valuation | Real-time, uniform price | Appraisal-based, subjective |
Protocol Integration | Universal (ERC-20, SPL) | Limited (ERC-721, ERC-1155) |
Market Liquidity Depth | Billions in DEX pools | Millions in NFT marketplaces |
Standardized Risk Models |
pros-cons-a
PROS & CONS ANALYSIS
NFT Collateral: Advantages and Drawbacks
A technical breakdown of using Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) versus Fungible Tokens (e.g., ETH, stablecoins) as collateral in DeFi protocols. Key metrics and protocol examples illustrate the trade-offs for protocol architects.
03
Fungible Token Collateral: Key Advantage
Liquidity & Stability: Assets like ETH, wBTC, and USDC have deep, continuous liquidity on DEXs (e.g., Uniswap, Curve) and reliable Chainlink oracles. This allows for precise, high-frequency liquidations with minimal slippage, securing protocols like MakerDAO and Aave.
$15B+
MakerDAO TVL
99.9%
Liquidation Success Rate
04
Fungible Token Collateral: Primary Drawback
Capital Inefficiency for NFT Holders: Requires locking high-liquidity tokens, forcing NFT collectors to sell assets to access capital. This fails to tap into the $10B+ of value locked in blue-chip NFT collections, a massive, under-collateralized market segment.
pros-cons-b
NFTs vs. Fungible Tokens
Fungible Token Collateral: Advantages and Drawbacks
A technical breakdown of collateral mechanisms for DeFi protocols like Aave, MakerDAO, and NFTfi. Evaluate liquidity, valuation, and risk profiles.
01
Fungible Token Pros: Superior Liquidity & Price Stability
Deep, predictable liquidity: Assets like ETH, wBTC, and stablecoins (USDC, DAI) dominate DeFi with billions in TVL. This enables high loan-to-value (LTV) ratios (e.g., 80% for ETH on Aave) and minimal slippage for liquidations. Oracle simplicity: Reliable price feeds from Chainlink and Pyth provide sub-second updates, reducing oracle attack surfaces. This is critical for stable, high-volume lending pools.
$50B+
DeFi TVL in Fungible Assets
< 1 sec
Oracle Price Latency
02
Fungible Token Cons: Homogeneous, Yield-Dependent
Lack of asset differentiation: All units are identical, offering no unique utility or rarity premium. Collateral value is purely market-driven and correlated to crypto volatility. Yield competition: To attract deposits, protocols must offer competitive rewards, squeezing margins. This model is vulnerable to broader market downturns, as seen in the 2022 de-leveraging events across Compound and Maker.
03
NFT Pros: Unique Value & Underlying Utility
Collateralizing illiquid assets: Enables loans against high-value, non-fractionalized assets like CryptoPunks, Bored Apes, or real-world assets (RWAs) tokenized via ERC-721. Value beyond market price: NFTs can represent intellectual property, membership, or physical assets, providing intrinsic utility that may stabilize long-term value. Protocols like NFTfi and BendDAO specialize in this niche.
30-50%
Typical NFT LTV Ratio
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Use Which
Fungible Tokens for DeFi
Verdict: The Standard. Use for generalized, high-efficiency lending markets. Strengths: High liquidity, predictable price oracles (Chainlink, Pyth), standardized liquidation engines (Aave, Compound), and composable with yield strategies. TVL is concentrated here for a reason. Trade-offs: Requires over-collateralization, lacks unique asset utility. Example: DAI stablecoin loan backed by ETH (WETH) on MakerDAO.
Non-Fungible Tokens for DeFi
Verdict: Niche but Powerful. Use for under-collateralized loans, fractionalization, or leveraging unique asset value. Strengths: Enables novel credit models based on reputation or cash flow (NFTfi, Arcade). Allows fractional ownership of high-value assets (Pudgy Penguins via Fractional.art). Can represent real-world asset (RWA) deeds. Trade-offs: Illiquid, complex valuation (requires appraisers like Upshot), higher oracle latency, bespoke smart contract logic. Example: Borrowing against a CryptoPunk's proven floor price on NFTfi.
COLLATERAL COMPARISON
Technical Deep Dive: Valuation and Liquidation Engines
Choosing between NFTs and fungible tokens as collateral involves fundamental trade-offs in risk management, pricing, and liquidation mechanics. This analysis breaks down the key technical and economic differences for protocol architects.
Fungible tokens are vastly easier to value. They have a single, liquid market price from DEXs like Uniswap or CEXs, enabling real-time, reliable oracle feeds from Chainlink or Pyth. NFTs, however, require complex valuation models like floor price (Blur, OpenSea), time-weighted average price (TWAP), or appraisals (Upshot, Abacus), introducing significant latency and subjectivity.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Strategic Recommendation
Choosing between fungible and non-fungible tokens as collateral is a fundamental design decision with profound implications for protocol risk, liquidity, and user experience.
Fungible Tokens (e.g., ETH, stablecoins) excel at providing deep, predictable liquidity and standardized risk assessment. Their homogeneity allows for simple oracle pricing and high capital efficiency in lending protocols like Aave and Compound, where they dominate the $15B+ DeFi collateral market. This standardization enables automated liquidations and composability across the ecosystem, reducing operational overhead.
Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) take a different approach by unlocking value from unique digital assets. Projects like BendDAO and JPEG'd have pioneered NFT-backed lending, but face significant challenges: illiquidity, volatile and subjective valuation (reliant on floor price oracles), and high concentration risk. A single CryptoPunk or Bored Ape can collateralize a six-figure loan, but its price discovery is less efficient than for fungible assets.
The key trade-off is liquidity versus asset coverage. Fungible tokens offer a battle-tested, low-friction model for scalable DeFi. NFTs open new verticals like fractionalized real-world assets (via ERC-721/1155) and luxury goods finance, but introduce complex risk layers. Consider fungible tokens if your priority is capital efficiency, stability, and integrating with mainstream DeFi legos. Choose NFTs as collateral only when targeting a specific asset class (e.g., art, real estate) and are prepared to build robust, custom risk infrastructure for valuation and liquidation.
ENQUIRY
Get In Touch
today.
Our experts will offer a free quote and a 30min call to discuss your project.
NDA Protected
Confidentiality24h Response
Time to ValueDirectly to Engineering Team
No Sales Fluff10+
Protocols Shipped
$20M+
TVL Overall