Unlockd excels at providing liquidity for high-value, illiquid assets by enabling them as collateral for loans. Its core strength is a sophisticated risk engine that assesses NFT collections and individual items for loan-to-value ratios, integrating with major lending pools on Ethereum and Polygon. For example, its protocol has facilitated over $50M in total loan volume, focusing on blue-chip collections like Bored Ape Yacht Club to power DeFi borrowing.
LABS
Comparisons
Unlockd vs Fractional.art: Fractionalization for Collateralized Lending
A technical analysis comparing Unlockd's DeFi-native lending protocol with Fractional.art's general fractional ownership platform. We evaluate architecture, risk models, and optimal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Divergent Paths for Fractionalized Assets
A technical breakdown of two leading protocols redefining NFT utility for institutional lending and investment.
Fractional.art (now Tessera) takes a different approach by democratizing ownership and governance of premium NFTs. Its strategy centers on minting fractionalized tokens (like ERC-20 vault tokens) that represent shared ownership, enabling collective investment and decision-making. This results in a trade-off: while it unlocks investment accessibility, the fractionalized assets are not natively designed as loan collateral within its own system, shifting the focus from lending to shared ownership and community governance.
The key trade-off: If your priority is leveraging existing high-value NFTs for immediate DeFi liquidity and loans, choose Unlockd. Its infrastructure is built for collateral managers and lenders. If you prioritize enabling fractional investment, community-driven ownership, and governance of trophy assets, choose Fractional.art/Tessera. Your choice hinges on the primary utility: collateralization versus democratization.
tldr-summary
Unlockd vs Fractional.art
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs for collateralized lending via NFT fractionalization at a glance.
01
Unlockd: Superior for Lending & Borrowing
Protocol-first lending engine: Built from the ground up for collateralized loans using fractionalized NFTs. Features include dynamic interest rates, automated liquidations via Chainlink oracles, and cross-margin accounts. This matters for DeFi-native users seeking leverage against high-value assets like CryptoPunks or Bored Apes.
$20M+
TVL (Peak)
02
Unlockd: Cross-Chain Liquidity
Multi-chain architecture: Deployed on Ethereum, Polygon, and Base. This enables access to fragmented liquidity and reduces gas costs for transactions like loan origination and fractional trading. This matters for protocols and large holders needing to manage collateral portfolios across ecosystems.
03
Fractional.art: Superior for Curation & DAOs
Community-focused curation: Originally designed for collective NFT ownership (e.g., ConstitutionDAO). The platform excels at vault creation, governance via fractional tokens, and community-driven asset management. This matters for DAOs, collectors, and projects aiming to fractionalize for governance, not primarily for debt.
04
Fractional.art: Proven Market & Brand
Established marketplace and standard: Pioneered the fractional NFT space with high-profile sales. The F-NFT (Fractional NFT) standard is widely recognized, and its marketplace provides built-in secondary liquidity for fractions. This matters for asset owners prioritizing brand trust and a ready-made buyer ecosystem over complex DeFi features.
$200M+
Total Volume
FRACTIONALIZATION FOR COLLATERALIZED LENDING
Unlockd vs Fractional.art: Feature Comparison
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for NFT fractionalization platforms in DeFi lending.
| Metric / Feature | Unlockd | Fractional.art (now Tessera) |
|---|---|---|
Primary Use Case | Collateralized Lending | Collective Ownership & DAOs |
Native Lending Protocol | ||
Supported NFT Types | ERC-721, ERC-1155 | ERC-721 |
Fraction Standard | ERC-721M (Multi-Token) | ERC-721 (via Vaults) |
Avg. Gas Cost to Fractionalize | ~$80-150 | ~$200-400 |
Liquidity Pools for Fractions | Integrated (Uniswap V3) | External (SushiSwap, etc.) |
Governance Model for Vaults | Lender-Determined | DAO / Multi-sig |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Unlockd vs Fractional.art: Fractionalization for Collateralized Lending
A technical breakdown of two leading fractionalization protocols, focusing on their architecture for DeFi lending. Key differentiators include collateral management, liquidity mechanisms, and risk models.
01
Unlockd: Integrated Lending Engine
Native lending/borrowing protocol: Unlockd's core is a non-custodial liquidity market. Users can deposit fractionalized NFTs as collateral to borrow assets like ETH, USDC, or wBTC. This creates a self-contained capital efficiency loop without relying on external money markets. This matters for protocols building a dedicated lending vertical on top of NFTfi.
02
Unlockd: Cross-Chain Liquidity
Multi-chain deployment on Polygon, Base, and Ethereum: Unlike single-chain solutions, Unlockd aggregates liquidity and collateral across networks. This is critical for scaling user acquisition and accessing cheaper transaction environments (e.g., Polygon's <$0.01 fees). It matters for projects targeting a broad, cost-sensitive user base beyond Ethereum mainnet.
03
Fractional.art: Proven Composability
Vault standard (ERC-721) and fungible token (ERC-20): Fractional.art's architecture mints a standard ERC-20 token (e.g., $DOG for Doge NFT) representing ownership. This enables seamless integration with existing DeFi primitives like Uniswap, SushiSwap, and lending protocols (Aave, Compound). This matters for teams that prioritize maximum liquidity and existing ecosystem tooling.
04
Fractional.art: Governance & Curation Focus
Built-in governance for vault management: Token holders vote on key actions like accepting buyout offers or setting reserve prices. This creates a community-driven curation layer, ideal for DAOs or collective ownership of high-value assets (e.g., ConstitutionDAO). This matters less for pure collateralization and more for collective investment and governance use cases.
pros-cons-b
Unlockd vs Fractional.art
Fractional.art: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for fractionalizing NFTs as collateral at a glance.
01
Unlockd: Integrated Lending Protocol
Native lending/borrowing engine: Unlockd is a full-stack protocol where fractionalized NFTs are the primary collateral type. This matters for projects needing direct, on-chain liquidity without bridging assets to a separate lending market. The system is purpose-built for underwriting and loan origination against fractionalized positions.
02
Unlockd: Cross-Chain Liquidity
Multi-chain deployment: Supports Ethereum, Polygon, and Avalanche. This matters for reaching a broader user base and accessing liquidity across ecosystems. Borrowers can collateralize assets on the chain where they are held, avoiding expensive cross-chain bridges.
03
Fractional.art: Proven Fractionalization Standard
Industry-standard Vaults: Fractional.art (now Tessera) pioneered the ERC-721 fractionalization model used by many protocols. This matters for composability and trust, as its Vaults are a battle-tested primitive integrated across DeFi (e.g., Index Coop, NFTX).
04
Fractional.art: Governance & Curation Focus
Community-driven ownership: Original platform emphasized collective decision-making for vaulted assets (like ConstitutionDAO). This matters for community projects and DAOs where governance over the underlying NFT is a primary goal, not just collateralization.
05
Unlockd: Risk Assessment Engine
Dynamic Loan-to-Value (LTV) ratios: Uses real-time price oracles and collection-level risk parameters. This matters for capital efficiency and safety, allowing higher LTVs for blue-chip collections (like Bored Ape Yacht Club) while protecting lenders from volatile assets.
06
Fractional.art: No Native Lending
Protocol dependency: Requires integrating with external lending markets (like NFTfi or BendDAO) for loans. This matters for development overhead, as teams must manage smart contract integrations and liquidity provisioning across two separate systems.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
When to Choose: User Scenarios
Unlockd for DeFi Builders
Verdict: The specialized, capital-efficient choice for collateralized lending protocols. Strengths: Unlockd is engineered as a dedicated lending primitive. Its core strength is enabling NFTs and RWAs to be used as collateral for loans, unlocking liquidity without selling the underlying asset. It features a sophisticated risk engine with dynamic LTVs and health factors, integrates with Chainlink oracles for price feeds, and offers a unified SDK for developers. This makes it ideal for building or integrating advanced lending/borrowing features directly into your dApp. For example, a protocol could use Unlockd's contracts to allow users to borrow stablecoins against a Bored Ape Yacht Club NFT.
Fractional.art for DeFi Builders
Verdict: A foundational tool for creating fungible tokens from NFTs, but not a lending protocol. Strengths: Fractional.art (now Tessera) excels at the fractionalization process itself. It provides smart contracts and a frontend to mint ERC-20 tokens (like $DOG for Doge NFT) representing shares of an NFT. This creates liquidity pools for high-value assets. However, it is not a lending platform. Builders would need to integrate these fractionalized ERC-20s into separate DeFi protocols (like Aave or Uniswap) to enable lending or trading. It's a powerful primitive for asset democratization, but requires additional development work for collateralized lending use cases.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide CTOs and architects in selecting the optimal fractionalization platform for their lending protocol's collateral strategy.
Unlockd excels at providing a high-liquidity, capital-efficient environment for NFT-backed loans. Its core strength is a unified liquidity pool model that aggregates fractionalized NFT shares, enabling instant loan origination without waiting for a specific buyer. This is evidenced by its support for major collections like Bored Ape Yacht Club and Azuki, with a protocol designed for high-throughput lending. The focus is on maximizing loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and minimizing time-to-liquidity for borrowers.
Fractional.art (now Tessera) takes a different, community-centric approach by enabling the creation of discrete, tradable vaults for individual NFTs or collections. This results in deeper, asset-specific liquidity and direct governance for token holders, but introduces fragmentation. Its model pioneered the space, with early vaults for iconic assets like ConstitutionDAO's copy of the U.S. Constitution, demonstrating strength in long-tail, high-value asset fractionalization and community ownership structures.
The key trade-off is liquidity model versus asset specificity. Unlockd's pooled approach sacrifices direct holder governance for superior capital efficiency and speed, crucial for a lending protocol's treasury management. Fractional.art's vault model offers unparalleled flexibility and community alignment for unique assets but requires bootstrapping liquidity per vault. Consider Unlockd if your priority is a scalable, automated lending engine for blue-chip NFT collateral. Choose Fractional.art (Tessera) when your protocol requires fractionalizing bespoke, high-value assets with dedicated community governance and you can manage liquidity curation.
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