NFTfi pioneered the peer-to-peer (P2P) model, where lenders and borrowers negotiate custom, fixed-term loans directly. This architecture excels at flexibility and risk assessment because each loan is a bespoke contract. Lenders can underwrite based on specific NFT traits, collection rarity, and borrower reputation, leading to higher potential APYs for exotic assets. For example, a lender might offer favorable terms on a rare Bored Ape with specific attributes that an automated pool cannot value.
LABS
Comparisons
NFTfi vs Blend: Peer-to-Peer vs Peer-to-Pool Lending
A technical comparison for CTOs and protocol architects evaluating NFT lending infrastructure. Analyzes liquidity models, risk profiles, and integration complexity.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: The Two Models of NFT Lending
A foundational breakdown of the two dominant architectures powering the $2.5B+ NFT lending market, defined by their approach to liquidity and risk.
Blend by Blur introduced the peer-to-pool (P2P) model, where lenders deposit into a shared liquidity pool from which borrowers can instantly draw funds via a Dutch auction mechanism. This strategy results in superior liquidity and speed for mainstream blue-chip collections. The trade-off is standardization; loans are non-negotiable with fixed durations and loan-to-value ratios, abstracting away granular collateral analysis for pure market-driven pricing.
The key trade-off: If your protocol's priority is custom underwriting for long-tail or high-value NFTs, the P2P model of NFTfi is superior. If you prioritize instant, high-volume lending for top collections like CryptoPunks or Azuki to maximize capital efficiency, the P2P pool model of Blend is the clear choice. This fundamental architectural decision dictates your user experience, risk profile, and addressable market.
tldr-summary
NFTfi vs Blend: Peer-to-Peer vs Peer-to-Pool Lending
TL;DR: Core Differentiators
Key strengths and trade-offs at a glance for the two dominant NFT lending architectures.
01
NFTfi: Customizable Terms
Peer-to-Peer negotiation: Borrowers and lenders set terms (loan-to-value, duration, interest) directly via offers. This matters for non-fungible collateral like high-value 1/1s or niche collections where standardized terms don't fit. Enables bespoke deals for blue-chip assets.
02
NFTfi: No Liquidation Cascades
Isolated risk: Each loan is a discrete agreement between two parties. A default only affects that specific lender/borrower pair. This matters for protocol stability, as there is no shared liquidity pool that can be drained by a single bad debt event, protecting the broader system.
03
Blend: Instant Liquidity
Peer-to-Pool model: Borrowers draw from a shared liquidity pool (like those from Blur's bidding system), enabling immediate loan execution. This matters for high-frequency traders and flippers who need capital on-demand without waiting for a counterparty to accept an offer.
04
Blend: Capital Efficiency & Yield
Continuous lending: Lenders deposit into pools that automatically fund loans, maximizing asset utilization. This matters for passive yield seekers who want to earn interest on ETH without actively managing individual loan offers. Drives higher TVL and volume (Blend facilitated $5B+ in volume in its first year).
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Matrix: NFTfi vs Blend
Direct comparison of peer-to-peer and peer-to-pool NFT lending protocols.
| Metric | NFTfi (Peer-to-Peer) | Blend (Peer-to-Pool) |
|---|---|---|
Liquidity Model | Peer-to-Peer (Order Book) | Peer-to-Pool (Blur Lending Pools) |
Avg. Loan-to-Value (LTV) | 30-50% | 40-80% |
Primary NFT Collections | All ERC-721 | Top 10-20 by Volume (e.g., Pudgy Penguins, Milady) |
Interest Rate Model | Negotiated / Fixed | Dynamic (Dutch Auction) |
Time to Liquidity | Minutes to Hours | < 1 second |
Native Platform | Standalone Marketplace | Integrated with Blur Marketplace |
Loan Default Handling | Manual Foreclosure | Automatic Seizure & Sale |
pros-cons-a
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
NFTfi vs Blend: Peer-to-Peer vs Peer-to-Pool Lending
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs for two dominant NFT lending models. Choose based on your primary need for flexibility or liquidity.
01
NFTfi: Customizable Terms
Peer-to-Peer negotiation: Borrowers and lenders set loan-to-value (LTV), duration, and interest rates directly. This enables bespoke financing for high-value or illiquid assets like CryptoPunks or Fidenza #1. Ideal for whale-to-whale deals and complex collateral.
02
Blend: Instant Liquidity
Peer-to-Pool model with Blur's liquidity: Loans are funded from a shared pool, enabling instant, no-negotiation loans. This powers high-frequency trading and refinancing, with over $5B+ in cumulative volume. Best for active traders on Blur seeking speed.
03
NFTfi: Protocol Agnostic
Multi-chain and collection-agnostic: Supports lending on Ethereum, Base, and Polygon for a wide range of NFT collections. This provides maximum flexibility for lenders to build diversified portfolios across ecosystems like Art Blocks and Bored Ape Yacht Club.
04
Blend: Integrated Marketplace
Native to the Blur marketplace: Offers seamless list-for-loan and refinancing directly within the trading interface. This creates a flywheel for liquidity, where 90%+ of NFT loan volume occurs. Essential for protocols needing deep integration with a primary trading venue.
05
NFTfi: Risk of Illiquidity
No guaranteed loan fulfillment: Requires a matching lender, which can lead to long wait times or no bids for non-blue-chip assets. This model struggles with providing consistent liquidity for long-tail collections compared to pool-based systems.
06
Blend: Limited to Ethereum & Blur
Single-chain and marketplace-dependent: Currently only operates on Ethereum and is tightly coupled to the Blur ecosystem. This creates vendor lock-in and cross-chain fragmentation, limiting its utility for multi-chain NFT portfolios or non-Blur users.
pros-cons-b
PROTOCOL COMPARISON
NFTfi vs Blend: Peer-to-Peer vs Peer-to-Pool Lending
Key architectural strengths and trade-offs at a glance. Choose based on your primary need: bespoke terms or instant liquidity.
01
NFTfi: Customizable Deals
Peer-to-Peer negotiation: Borrowers and lenders set loan-to-value (LTV) ratios, interest rates, and durations directly. This enables tailored terms for rare or illiquid assets like CryptoPunks or Fidenza #879, which is critical for high-value collectors and sophisticated lenders seeking alpha.
02
NFTfi: Protocol Agnostic
Multi-chain, multi-standard support: Works across Ethereum, Polygon, and Base with ERC-721 and ERC-1155 NFTs. This matters for protocols and DAOs managing diverse portfolios who need a single, flexible lending solution, avoiding vendor lock-in to a specific ecosystem like Blur.
03
Blend: Instant Liquidity
Peer-to-Pool with automated offers: Uses a Dutch auction model powered by liquidity pools to provide instant, take-it-or-leave-it loan offers. This delivers sub-second execution for popular collections like Miladies and Pudgy Penguins, which is essential for traders and flippers prioritizing speed over negotiation.
04
Blend: Capital Efficiency
Continuous, rolling loans: Features no-expiration loans that automatically refinance via a peer-to-peer offer system. This maximizes lender yield and reduces borrower liquidation risk, a key advantage for professional market makers and funds managing large, recurring positions on the Blur marketplace.
05
NFTfi: Liquidation Risk
Manual negotiation overhead: The lack of automated, pooled liquidity can lead to longer time-to-loan and higher slippage for non-blue-chip assets. This is a trade-off for projects needing immediate capital or for less liquid collections where finding a counterparty is difficult.
06
Blend: Ecosystem Lock-in
Tightly coupled with Blur: Primarily serves NFTs listed on the Blur marketplace and uses its native points system. This creates dependency risk for protocols that require cross-marketplace neutrality or for users who do not wish to concentrate activity on a single platform.
CHOOSE YOUR LENDING MODEL
When to Use NFTfi vs Blend
NFTfi for Lenders
Verdict: Full control and higher yield potential. Strengths: As a peer-to-peer platform, lenders can set custom terms (APR, duration, LTV) for each loan, enabling premium rates for niche or high-value NFTs. Direct negotiation with borrowers allows for bespoke deals. The protocol supports a wide range of ERC-721 and ERC-1155 assets, offering diverse collateral options. Considerations: Requires active management to source deals and assess collateral risk. Liquidity is not pooled, so capital may be idle while waiting for a matching borrower.
Blend for Lenders
Verdict: Passive, high-velocity capital deployment. Strengths: Operates as a peer-to-pool model. Lenders deposit into liquidity pools (e.g., WETH, USDC) to earn yield automatically. The protocol's automated, non-expiring loan model ensures capital is constantly recycled. Integration with Blur's marketplace creates massive, predictable loan volume, leading to consistent, if potentially lower, yields. Considerations: Yield is market-driven and shared across the pool. Lenders cede control over individual loan terms and collateral selection.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict and Decision Framework
A data-driven breakdown to guide your choice between peer-to-peer and peer-to-pool NFT lending architectures.
NFTfi excels at customizable, high-value loans because its peer-to-peer model allows direct negotiation of terms like duration, LTV, and interest. For example, the platform has facilitated multi-million dollar loans on blue-chip collections like CryptoPunks and Bored Apes, with an average loan size often exceeding 10 ETH, catering to sophisticated borrowers and lenders seeking bespoke deals.
Blend takes a different approach by implementing a peer-to-pool, instant-liquidity model powered by its native pool infrastructure. This results in a trade-off: it sacrifices term flexibility for superior speed and accessibility, enabling sub-10-second loan origination and refinancing for a broader user base, as evidenced by its rapid capture of over 50% market share in NFT lending volume shortly after launch.
The key trade-off: If your priority is capital efficiency and bespoke terms for high-value assets, choose NFTfi. Its P2P model is ideal for institutional players and whale collectors. If you prioritize user experience, liquidity depth, and automated execution for a retail-focused product, choose Blend. Its P2Pool system is optimized for high-volume, collection-specific lending with predictable rates.
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