Linear Interest Rate Models excel at providing predictable, stable borrowing costs by adjusting rates in a constant, proportional manner to utilization. This simplicity makes them ideal for risk-averse users and stablecoin-focused protocols like early versions of Compound. For example, a linear model might increase the APY from 2% to 10% as utilization moves from 50% to 90%, offering clear, calculable costs for integrators.
LABS
Comparisons
Linear vs Kinked Interest Rate Models
A technical analysis comparing linear and kinked interest rate models for decentralized lending protocols. This guide examines mathematical design, borrower/lender incentives, capital efficiency, and protocol stability to inform architecture decisions for CTOs and protocol designers.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction
A foundational comparison of two dominant DeFi mechanisms for managing borrowing and lending efficiency.
Kinked Interest Rate Models take a different approach by introducing a sharp, non-linear increase in rates after a predefined optimal utilization rate (e.g., 80-90%). This strategy, pioneered by protocols like Aave, is designed to aggressively protect liquidity and disincentivize over-utilization. The trade-off is a more complex user experience and potentially volatile rates near the kink, but it provides stronger safeguards for protocol solvency during market stress.
The key trade-off: If your priority is predictable cost structures and simplicity for users, choose a Linear model. If you prioritize liquidity protection and protocol security above all, especially for volatile asset pools, a Kinked model is the superior choice. The decision fundamentally hinges on whether you value user experience stability or systemic risk mitigation.
tldr-summary
Linear vs Kinked Interest Rate Models
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for protocol architects designing lending markets.
01
Linear Model: Predictable Stability
Specific advantage: Interest rates change smoothly and predictably with utilization. This matters for risk modeling and user experience, as borrowers and lenders can forecast costs/returns without sudden jumps. Protocols like Aave V2 use this for core stablecoin pools.
02
Linear Model: Simpler Integration
Specific advantage: A single, continuous function reduces smart contract complexity and gas costs. This matters for new protocols or sidechains where audit surface and execution efficiency are critical. It's the standard model for many foundational DeFi blueprints.
03
Kinked Model: Capital Efficiency Guardrail
Specific advantage: Introduces a sharp rate increase at a target utilization (e.g., 80-90%) to strongly incentivize liquidity replenishment. This matters for protecting protocol solvency during high demand, as seen in Compound's cToken design, helping to prevent liquidity crunches.
04
Kinked Model: Optimized for Volatile Assets
Specific advantage: The "kink" acts as a circuit breaker, making it superior for long-tail or volatile asset markets where liquidity is thinner. It creates a clear economic signal for liquidators and lenders, a strategy employed by Compound for non-stablecoin assets.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Linear vs Kinked Interest Rate Models
Direct comparison of key parameters and behaviors for DeFi lending protocols.
| Parameter | Linear Model | Kinked Model |
|---|---|---|
Model Complexity | Single slope | Two slopes (kink point) |
Optimal Utilization Target | Not defined | Typically 80-90% |
Interest Rate at Low Utilization | Gradual increase | Low, stable rate |
Interest Rate at High Utilization | Linear increase continues | Exponential increase post-kink |
Borrower Cost Predictability | High | High below kink, low above |
Liquidity Provider Incentive | Constant | Strong near kink |
Protocols Using Model | MakerDAO (DSR), early Aave | Compound v2, Aave v2/v3 |
pros-cons-a
LINEAR VS KINKED INTEREST RATE MODELS
Linear Model: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for DeFi lending protocol architects at a glance. Decision hinges on target market stability versus capital efficiency.
01
Linear Model: Predictable Borrowing
Simple, transparent pricing: Interest rates change at a constant slope (e.g., 0.02% per 1% utilization). This provides deterministic cost forecasting for institutional borrowers and risk models. Protocols like early Compound used this for stability.
02
Linear Model: Capital Inefficiency
Suboptimal rates at critical levels: At high utilization (>90%), rates may not rise sharply enough to incentivize repayments or new supply, increasing liquidation risk. At low utilization, rates may be too high, stifling borrowing demand and protocol revenue.
03
Kinked Model: Liquidity Defense
Aggressive rate spikes near capacity: Features a 'kink' point (e.g., 80% utilization) where the slope increases dramatically. This strongly incentivizes repayments and additional deposits to protect protocol solvency, a design used by Aave v2.
04
Kinked Model: Complexity & Volatility
Introduces a discontinuity: The sharp rate jump can create volatile borrowing costs near the kink, complicating hedging strategies. Requires careful parameter tuning (kink point, slope ratios) and can lead to inefficient markets if set incorrectly.
pros-cons-b
LINEAR VS KINKED INTEREST RATE MODELS
Kinked Model: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for two dominant DeFi lending rate models.
01
Linear Model: Predictability
Simple, transparent calculation: Interest rates change linearly with utilization. This provides clear, deterministic projections for borrowers and lenders, crucial for long-term financial planning in protocols like Aave V2 and Compound V2. It's easier to audit and model.
02
Linear Model: Liquidity Efficiency
Encourages optimal capital deployment: Rates adjust smoothly across all utilization levels, incentivizing borrowers and lenders to naturally balance the pool. This avoids sharp discontinuities that can lead to liquidity fragmentation or "cliff-edge" behavior.
03
Kinked Model: Stability Protection
Explicit safety mechanism: Features a sharp rate increase (the "kink") at a target utilization (e.g., 80-90%). This strongly discourages borrowing past this threshold, protecting protocol solvency and lender funds during high demand, a core design in Compound V2's original model.
04
Kinked Model: Predictable High-Rate Regime
Clear penalty zone: Once past the kink, borrowers face a steep, predictable cost for scarce liquidity. This creates a stable, high-yield environment for lenders during periods of stress, making it attractive for conservative liquidity providers in volatile markets.
05
Linear Model: Inflexibility in Stress
Lacks emergency brakes: A purely linear model may not react sharply enough to rapidly increasing utilization, potentially risking over-leverage and liquidity crunches if not combined with other safeguards like Aave's stability fee or Compound's reserve factors.
06
Kinked Model: Potential Inefficiency
Can create liquidity cliffs: The sharp kink can lead to under-utilization of capital just below the threshold, as borrowers avoid crossing it. This can result in lower overall capital efficiency and more fragmented liquidity pools compared to smoother models.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Use Each Model: A Scenario Guide
Linear Model for Lending
Verdict: The Standard for Mainstream Assets. Strengths: Predictable, stable interest rates for high-liquidity assets like ETH, USDC, or WBTC. This simplicity reduces user confusion and is battle-tested in protocols like Compound v2 and Aave v2. It's ideal when your primary goal is capital efficiency and user retention for blue-chip collateral, as it avoids sudden, punitive rate spikes that could trigger mass withdrawals.
Kinked Model for Lending
Verdict: Superior for Volatile or Long-Tail Assets. Strengths: Built-in protection against liquidity crises. By implementing a sharp rate increase (the "kink") at a high utilization threshold (e.g., 90%), it strongly incentivizes repayments and additional deposits before the pool is drained. This is critical for managing risk in lending markets for less liquid assets or in isolated pool designs, as seen in Compound v3 and Euler Finance. Use this to safely list novel collateral.
DECOMPOSING THE FORMULAS
Technical Deep Dive: Model Mechanics and Math
A quantitative breakdown of Linear and Kinked interest rate models, focusing on their underlying mathematical frameworks, parameter sensitivities, and real-world implementation impacts on protocols like Aave and Compound.
The core difference is the relationship between utilization and interest rate. A Linear model uses a single, continuous slope: rate = baseRate + (utilization * slope). A Kinked model introduces a breakpoint (kink) with two distinct slopes: a lower slope below the optimal utilization and a steeper, often exponential, slope above it. This creates a piecewise function designed to aggressively incentivize rebalancing when the pool is over-utilized.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Final Verdict and Decision Framework
Choosing between Linear and Kinked models is a fundamental design decision that dictates protocol behavior, user experience, and risk profile.
Linear Interest Rate Models excel at providing predictable, stable borrowing costs and a smooth user experience because they apply a constant slope to utilization. For example, Aave's stablecoin pools historically used linear models to maintain steady rates between ~5-15% APY under normal conditions, fostering a reliable environment for long-term strategies and risk modeling. This simplicity makes them easier to audit and integrate, reducing implementation overhead for new protocols.
Kinked Interest Rate Models take a different approach by introducing a sharp, non-linear increase in rates past a specific utilization threshold (e.g., 80-90%). This strategy, pioneered by Compound and used by protocols like Venus, creates a powerful economic incentive for liquidity rebalancing. The resulting trade-off is a more volatile rate environment for users near the kink, but a stronger defense against liquidity crises, as seen when utilization spikes trigger rates to jump from 10% to 50%+ APY to attract repayments and deposits.
The key trade-off is stability versus security. If your priority is predictable costs and a smooth UX for mainstream DeFi users—such as in a money market for stable yield—choose a Linear Model. If you prioritize protocol security and liquidity resilience above all, especially for volatile collateral assets or in nascent ecosystems, the circuit-breaker mechanism of a Kinked Model is the definitive choice. The decision ultimately maps to your protocol's risk tolerance and target user sophistication.
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