Centrifuge excels at origination and structuring because it provides a dedicated, application-specific chain built with Substrate. Its protocol, Tinlake, allows asset originators (e.g., New Silver for real estate, Fortunafi for invoices) to create isolated, asset-backed pools with custom risk parameters. This modularity is evidenced by over $300M in total value locked (TVL) across hundreds of distinct pools, enabling granular exposure to specific asset classes like trade receivables or consumer loans.
LABS
Comparisons
Centrifuge vs. MakerDAO: On-Chain RWA Lending
A technical analysis comparing Centrifuge's native asset financing protocol with MakerDAO's stablecoin-first RWA collateral model. Evaluates architecture, risk, and ideal use cases for CTOs and protocol architects.
Chainscore © 2026
introduction
THE ANALYSIS
Introduction: Two Philosophies for On-Chain Real-World Assets
Centrifuge and MakerDAO represent two dominant, yet fundamentally different, architectural approaches to bringing real-world asset (RWA) lending on-chain.
MakerDAO takes a different approach by acting as a unified, capital-efficient reserve. It doesn't originate assets itself but uses governance to onboard large, institutional RWAs (like U.S. Treasury bonds via Monetalis) as collateral for its stablecoin, DAI. This strategy results in immense scale—over $2.5B in RWA collateral—but introduces centralization and governance latency as trade-offs, as each new asset type requires a lengthy MKR holder vote and risk assessment by delegates like BlockTower.
The key trade-off: If your priority is flexible, self-service asset tokenization and pool creation, choose Centrifuge. If you prioritize deep, aggregated liquidity and leveraging an established stablecoin's balance sheet for large-ticket institutional assets, choose MakerDAO.
tldr-summary
Centrifuge vs. MakerDAO
TL;DR: Core Differentiators at a Glance
Key strengths and trade-offs for on-chain Real-World Asset (RWA) lending.
01
Centrifuge: Specialized RWA Origination
Native asset tokenization: Centrifuge's Tinlake and Centrifuge Chain are purpose-built to originate, tokenize, and manage RWAs like invoices, trade finance, and real estate. This matters for institutions seeking a full-stack, compliant pipeline from the real world to DeFi.
$400M+
Historical RWA TVL
03
MakerDAO: Unmatched Liquidity & Stability
Deep DAI liquidity: Maker's ~$5B DAI stablecoin provides immediate, massive scale for RWA-backed loans. Protocols like BlockTower Andromeda and Huntingdon Valley Bank use Maker's vaults. This matters for large-scale treasuries (>$100M) that need efficient, single-asset execution.
$2.8B
RWA Collateral in Maker
04
MakerDAO: Battle-Tested Security
Decentralized governance & audits: Maker's decade-long history, multi-billion dollar economic security, and rigorous risk assessments (e.g., by BA Labs, Gauntlet) set the standard. This matters for risk-averse institutions prioritizing capital preservation and proven smart contract resilience.
05
Choose Centrifuge If...
You are an originator or asset manager building a dedicated lending product for a specific RWA class (e.g., green bonds, SME loans). You need granular control over pool parameters, investor onboarding (KYC), and legal structuring.
06
Choose MakerDAO If...
You are a large institution or DeFi protocol seeking the most capital-efficient way to borrow against high-quality, institutional RWAs (e.g., U.S. Treasuries). You prioritize accessing deep DAI liquidity and leveraging a proven, decentralized credit system.
HEAD-TO-HEAD COMPARISON
Feature Comparison: Centrifuge vs. MakerDAO for RWA
Direct comparison of key metrics and features for on-chain Real-World Asset lending.
| Metric | Centrifuge | MakerDAO |
|---|---|---|
Primary RWA Model | Direct Pool-Based Lending | Collateral-Backed Stablecoin (DAI) |
RWA TVL (USD) | $350M+ | $3.5B+ |
Asset Origination | Permissionless Pools (Tinlake) | Governance-Vetted (MIPs) |
Underwriting & Risk | Pool-Specific (Asset Originator) | Protocol-Wide (Risk Teams, Oracles) |
Liquidity Source | Direct from LPs (e.g., Aave, Morpho) | DAI Minting (via Vaults) |
Tokenization Standard | ERC-20 / ERC-721 (NFTs for Assets) | Not Applicable (Collateral Adapters) |
Primary Blockchain | Ethereum, Polkadot (via Moonbeam) | Ethereum |
pros-cons-a
PROS AND CONS
Centrifuge vs. MakerDAO: On-Chain RWA Lending
Key strengths and trade-offs for CTOs evaluating RWA lending infrastructure.
02
Centrifuge: Capital Efficiency for Originators
Direct borrower access: Originators can create asset pools and tap into DeFi liquidity without over-collateralization typical of general-purpose protocols. This matters for real-world businesses seeking competitive financing rates, evidenced by over $400M in total value locked across active pools.
$400M+
Total Value Locked
03
MakerDAO: Unmatched Liquidity & Stability
Deepest DeFi liquidity pool: Maker's DAI stablecoin, with a $5B+ market cap, provides immediate, massive scale for RWA yield. This matters for institutions requiring billion-dollar capacity and integration with ecosystems like Spark Protocol, Aave, and Compound.
$5B+
DAI Market Cap
04
MakerDAO: Battle-Tested Risk & Governance
Decade-long stress testing: Maker's governance and risk frameworks (MKR voters, Risk Core Units) have managed multiple market crises. This matters for protocol architects who prioritize institutional-grade risk management over speed of innovation for blue-chip RWAs like treasury bonds.
05
Centrifuge: Complexity & Fragmentation Risk
Multiple points of failure: Each asset pool requires its own legal SPV, oracle, and risk assessment, increasing operational overhead. This matters for VPs of Engineering where maintenance burden and smart contract audit surface are critical budget considerations.
06
MakerDAO: Slow Integration for New RWA Types
Governance bottleneck: Adding a new RWA collateral type requires lengthy MKR holder votes and consensus from decentralized risk teams. This matters for projects needing rapid iteration or targeting niche asset classes beyond established categories like real estate or invoices.
pros-cons-b
Centrifuge vs. MakerDAO
MakerDAO: Pros and Cons
Key strengths and trade-offs for on-chain Real-World Asset (RWA) lending at a glance.
01
MakerDAO: Capital Efficiency & Scale
Deep liquidity and proven stability: With over $8B in RWA collateral (primarily US Treasury bills), MakerDAO provides unparalleled scale. Its Dai Savings Rate (DSR) offers a native yield source, creating a flywheel for protocol-owned liquidity. This matters for protocols needing massive, stable liquidity pools or integrating a battle-tested stablecoin.
02
MakerDAO: Protocol Stability & Brand
Decade-long track record and decentralized governance: As the pioneer of decentralized finance, MakerDAO's Maker Governance (MKR) and Emergency Shutdown mechanisms are stress-tested. Its $5B+ DAI market cap offers immense stability. This matters for institutional partners and protocols where counterparty risk and long-term viability are paramount.
03
MakerDAO: Complexity & Integration Cost
High governance overhead and slower iteration: Adding new RWA collateral requires complex MIPs (Maker Improvement Proposals) and lengthy executive votes. Integration often involves off-chain legal entities (e.g., BlockTower Andromeda). This matters for asset originators seeking fast time-to-market or teams wanting lightweight, programmable collateral types.
04
MakerDAO: Concentrated Risk Profile
Heavy reliance on a few large positions: A significant portion of RWA revenue stems from a concentrated set of allocations (e.g., Monetalis Clydesdale). This creates systemic risk if a major counterparty fails. This matters for architects designing for maximum resilience and those wary of centralized points of failure in a decentralized system.
05
Centrifuge: Native RWA Primitive
Specialized infrastructure for asset tokenization: Centrifuge's Tinlake and Centrifuge Chain are built specifically for RWAs, offering tools like Asset Originator Pools and ERC-7412 for off-chain data. This matters for teams tokenizing invoices, royalties, or real estate who need embedded legal compliance and custody solutions.
06
Centrifuge: Flexibility & Composability
Modular pool structure and easy integration: Each asset pool is a standalone ERC-20 token (e.g., DROP/TIN tokens), enabling direct integration with DeFi legos like Aave and Frax Finance. This matters for developers who want to use RWAs as collateral in other protocols or create custom financial products.
CHOOSE YOUR PRIORITY
Decision Framework: When to Choose Which Protocol
Centrifuge for RWA Originators
Verdict: The clear choice for structuring and funding bespoke, off-chain assets. Strengths:
- Specialized Infrastructure: Centrifuge's Tinlake and Centrifuge Chain are purpose-built for creating and managing asset pools for specific, non-fungible assets like invoices, real estate, or royalties. The legal framework and KYC/AML integration are core features.
- Flexible Structuring: Originators have granular control over pool parameters, tranching (Senior/Junior), and legal documentation, which is critical for institutional-grade RWAs.
- Direct Access to Capital: Connects asset originators directly to DeFi liquidity without an intermediary stablecoin issuer. Considerations: Requires significant legal and technical overhead to structure each pool. Liquidity is fragmented across individual pools.
MakerDAO for RWA Originators
Verdict: A powerful distribution channel for large-scale, standardized assets seeking DAI liquidity. Strengths:
- Massive Liquidity Access: Tap into Maker's ~$5B DAI supply. RWA vaults like those managed by Monetalis (Greenwood), BlockTower, and Huntingdon Valley Bank demonstrate scale.
- Standardized Process: The Maker Governance framework provides a (relatively) standardized due diligence and onboarding process for multi-million dollar positions.
- Stability Fee Revenue: Earn yield by borrowing DAI against the asset. Considerations: Extremely high barrier to entry. Requires passing MakerDAO governance votes and working with approved facilitators. Less flexibility in asset structuring.
verdict
THE ANALYSIS
Verdict: Strategic Recommendations for Builders
Choosing between Centrifuge and MakerDAO hinges on your protocol's need for specialized RWA origination versus generalized capital efficiency.
Centrifuge excels at native, permissionless RWA tokenization because its infrastructure is purpose-built for real-world assets. Its Tinlake and Centrifuge Chain provide a full-stack solution for originators to tokenize assets like invoices, royalties, and real estate directly on-chain, with over $340M in total value locked (TVL) across its pools. This specialization allows for deep, asset-specific risk assessment and customization, making it the go-to for protocols whose core business is originating novel RWAs.
MakerDAO takes a different approach by leveraging its massive, established stablecoin system as a liquidity sink for RWAs. Through its Endgame Plan and Spark Protocol, Maker acts as a centralized underwriter, allocating portions of its $5B+ DAI supply to tokenized credit from partners like BlockTower and Huntingdon Valley Bank. This results in a trade-off: unparalleled scale and liquidity for accepted assets, but a more permissioned, governance-heavy process for onboarding new asset classes.
The key trade-off: If your priority is building and controlling a specialized RWA lending marketplace with flexible terms, choose Centrifuge. If you prioritize immediate, massive-scale liquidity for high-quality, standardized assets and can navigate a rigorous governance process, choose MakerDAO. For most builders, the decision maps directly to their role: originators and niche platforms align with Centrifuge, while large-scale capital allocators and integrators leverage Maker's DAI engine.
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