pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.23298 · v1 · pith:BYWARO3Xnew · submitted 2026-05-22 · 💻 cs.CE

DeFi Yield Aggregators: Analysing Investment Strategies and Structural Dependencies

Stefan Kitzler , Kasra Zarinehbaf Asadi , Svetlana Kremer , Bernhard Haslhofer This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-25 02:52 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.CE
keywords DeFiyield aggregatorsYearn FinanceCianrisk exposurecapital flowsinvestment strategiesstructural dependencies
0
0 comments X

The pith

Strategic complexity in yield aggregation does not necessarily translate into higher returns but materially expands risk exposure.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the operational mechanisms of two DeFi yield aggregators, Yearn Finance and Cian, by analyzing their transaction data over a one-year period. It decomposes their operations into investment and strategy management cycles and traces capital flows using a network approach. Yearn's USDC vault attracted 15.7M USD and achieved 5.41% annual yield through liquidity provision, while Cian's stETH vault attracted 54.0M USD but yielded only 4.22% with leverage strategies involving flashloans. The analysis extends the DeFi Stack Reference Model with new financial primitives to illustrate structural risk dependencies. Overall, the findings establish that increased strategic complexity primarily heightens risk exposure rather than boosting returns.

Core claim

Through examination of 2,459 Yearn and 921 Cian transactions, the study shows that Yearn's straightforward dynamic allocation generated higher returns with less risk compared to Cian's sophisticated recursive staking and leverage, prompting an extension of the DSR model to capture these dependencies.

What carries the argument

The decomposition of yield aggregator operations into user investment and strategy management cycles, along with network tracing of protocol interactions and capital flows to identify risk dependencies.

If this is right

  • Yearn's USDC vault provided 5.41% annual yield to users through liquidity provision and dynamic allocation across DeFi protocols.
  • Cian's stETH vault used flashloan-enabled recursive staking, leading to higher risk exposure despite attracting more capital.
  • Extending the DeFi Stack Reference Model with new financial primitives highlights structural risk dependencies in yield aggregation.
  • Strategic complexity does not necessarily lead to higher returns but expands risk exposure.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Transaction network analysis could be applied to other DeFi platforms to uncover hidden dependencies.
  • Investors may need to weigh risk exposure more heavily when selecting yield aggregators with complex strategies.
  • The model extension might inform the development of risk management tools for DeFi ecosystems.
  • Future studies could examine longer time periods or additional aggregators to validate these patterns.

Load-bearing premise

The selected transaction samples and one-year window fully represent the operational mechanisms and risk dependencies of the two vaults without material selection bias or missing off-chain factors.

What would settle it

A case where a yield aggregator employing highly complex strategies achieves substantially higher returns than simpler ones over a similar period would falsify the central claim.

read the original abstract

Yield aggregators are financial services in Decentralised Finance (DeFi) providing automated investment management and return optimisation for users. In this study, we investigate the operational mechanisms and monetary flows of two major yield aggregators, Yearn Finance and Cian, over the period from May 4, 2024 to May 3, 2025. Our supporting conceptual framework decomposes yield aggregator operations into user investment and strategy management cycles. Using a network approach for 2,459 Yearn and 921 Cian transactions, we trace protocol interactions and capital flows across the ecosystem. Users invested 15.7M USD into Yearn's USDC vault, which generated yield through liquidity provision and dynamic allocation across DeFi protocols. Cian, deployed later, attracted 54.0M USD into its staked-ETH (stETH) vault and implemented sophisticated leverage through flashloan-enabled recursive staking. Yearn's USDC vault achieves an annual yield of 5.41%, while Cian's stETH vault produces 4.22% with higher risk exposure. We use the operational insights from our analysis to extend the existing DeFi Stack Reference Model (DSR) with new financial primitives to highlight structural risk dependencies. Overall, our findings show that strategic complexity in yield aggregation does not necessarily translate into higher returns but materially expands risk exposure.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes operational mechanisms and capital flows of two DeFi yield aggregators—Yearn Finance (USDC vault) and Cian (stETH vault)—over May 2024–May 2025 using 2,459 Yearn and 921 Cian on-chain transactions. It decomposes operations into user investment and strategy management cycles, reports yields of 5.41% (Yearn) versus 4.22% (Cian), asserts higher risk for Cian due to leverage and flashloans, and concludes that strategic complexity expands risk exposure without necessarily increasing returns. The work extends the DeFi Stack Reference (DSR) model by adding new financial primitives to capture structural dependencies.

Significance. If the attribution of yield and risk differences to strategy complexity (rather than asset class) can be substantiated, the empirical network tracing of monetary flows and the DSR extension would provide a useful case study for modeling risk dependencies in yield aggregation. The on-chain transaction mapping offers a concrete, reproducible starting point for analyzing DeFi capital flows.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and results discussion: The central claim that 'strategic complexity in yield aggregation does not necessarily translate into higher returns but materially expands risk exposure' rests on comparing Yearn's USDC vault (5.41%) to Cian's stETH vault (4.22%). This comparison confounds strategy differences with the distinct baseline yields, volatility drivers, and market profiles of USDC lending/liquidity versus stETH staking; no normalized excess-return metric, asset-matched counterfactual, or decomposition isolating strategy effects is reported.
  2. [Empirical analysis] Data and empirical analysis sections: The reported yields and risk conclusions are based on observed transaction volumes without error bars, exclusion criteria, robustness checks across sub-periods, or discussion of selection bias in the 2,459/921 transaction samples and one-year window. This leaves the risk-exposure claim only partially supported, as off-chain factors and asset-specific baselines are unaddressed.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Model extension] The description of the DSR extension would benefit from an explicit list or diagram of the 'new financial primitives' added, to clarify how they differ from existing model components.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback. The comments highlight important limitations in how our empirical observations support the central claim and the robustness of the analysis. We address each point below and will make targeted revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and results discussion: The central claim that 'strategic complexity in yield aggregation does not necessarily translate into higher returns but materially expands risk exposure' rests on comparing Yearn's USDC vault (5.41%) to Cian's stETH vault (4.22%). This comparison confounds strategy differences with the distinct baseline yields, volatility drivers, and market profiles of USDC lending/liquidity versus stETH staking; no normalized excess-return metric, asset-matched counterfactual, or decomposition isolating strategy effects is reported.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the observed yield difference occurs across distinct asset classes with different baseline characteristics, so the comparison does not isolate the effect of strategic complexity from asset-specific factors. The manuscript presents the two vaults as illustrative case studies rather than a controlled experiment. We will revise the abstract to qualify the central claim as an observation drawn from these specific instances and add an explicit limitations paragraph noting the confounding of strategy and asset class. No normalized excess-return metric or counterfactual is feasible with the current data without introducing unsubstantiated assumptions. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Empirical analysis] Data and empirical analysis sections: The reported yields and risk conclusions are based on observed transaction volumes without error bars, exclusion criteria, robustness checks across sub-periods, or discussion of selection bias in the 2,459/921 transaction samples and one-year window. This leaves the risk-exposure claim only partially supported, as off-chain factors and asset-specific baselines are unaddressed.

    Authors: The yields derive directly from the complete set of recorded on-chain transactions in the one-year window with no post-hoc exclusions. Because the study is descriptive and network-oriented rather than statistical inference, error bars were omitted. We agree that additional discussion is warranted and will insert a new subsection on data limitations that covers the transaction samples, the fixed time window, potential selection effects, and off-chain influences. Where the transaction data permit, we will also report yields for two sub-periods as a basic robustness check. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Empirical transaction mapping contains no circular derivations or self-referential reductions

full rationale

The paper conducts an observational analysis of 2,459 Yearn and 921 Cian on-chain transactions over a fixed one-year window, tracing capital flows, computing realized yields (5.41% USDC vs 4.22% stETH), and extending the DSR model with observed primitives. No equations, fitted parameters, or predictions are defined; the central claim follows directly from the collected blockchain data without any step reducing to a self-definition, a fitted input renamed as prediction, or a load-bearing self-citation. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external ledger records.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 1 invented entities

The analysis rests on the assumption that on-chain transaction records accurately capture all relevant monetary flows and that the chosen period is representative. No free parameters are fitted; the extension of the DSR model introduces new primitives without independent falsifiable evidence.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Blockchain transaction logs provide a complete and unbiased record of user investments and protocol interactions for the studied vaults.
    Invoked to justify tracing 2,459 and 921 transactions as representative of operational cycles.
invented entities (1)
  • New financial primitives added to DSR model no independent evidence
    purpose: To highlight structural risk dependencies arising from yield-aggregator strategies.
    Introduced based on observed flows; no external validation or falsifiable prediction supplied.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5785 in / 1364 out tokens · 24978 ms · 2026-05-25T02:52:15.672516+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    4byte Directory

    4byte.directory. 4byte Directory . URL: https://www.4byte.directory/

    work page

  2. [2]

    Aave Protocol Whitepaper V1.0

    Aave . Aave Protocol Whitepaper V1.0 . White Paper, 2020. URL: https://github.com/aave/aave-protocol/blob/master/docs/Aave_Protocol_Whitepaper_v1_0.pdf

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    Unraveling the crypto market: A journey into decentralized finance transaction network

    Andry Alamsyah and Ivan Farid Muhamad. Unraveling the crypto market: A journey into decentralized finance transaction network . Digital Business , 4(1):100074, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.digbus.2024.100074 doi:10.1016/j.digbus.2024.100074

    work page doi:10.1016/j.digbus.2024.100074 2024

  4. [4]

    Leveraged Restaking of Leveraged Staking: What are the Risks? Available at SSRN 4840805 , 2024

    Carol Alexander. Leveraged Restaking of Leveraged Staking: What are the Risks? Available at SSRN 4840805 , 2024

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    A risk scoring framework for critical infrastructure of decentralized finance (defi)

    Sanidhay Arora, Yingjiu Li, Yebo Feng, and Jiahua Xu. A risk scoring framework for critical infrastructure of decentralized finance (defi). Blockchain: Research and Applications , 2026. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bcra.2026.100496 doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2026.100496

    work page doi:10.1016/j.bcra.2026.100496 2026

  6. [6]

    The technology of decentralized finance (defi)

    Raphael Auer, Bernhard Haslhofer, Stefan Kitzler, Pietro Saggese, and Friedhelm Victor. The technology of decentralized finance (defi). Digital Finance , aug 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42521-023-00088-8 doi:10.1007/s42521-023-00088-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s42521-023-00088-8 2023

  7. [7]

    Mapping microscopic and systemic risks in tradfi and defi: a literature review

    Sabrina Aufiero, Silvia Bartolucci, Fabio Caccioli, and Pierpaolo Vivo. Mapping microscopic and systemic risks in tradfi and defi: a literature review. arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.12007 , 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    SoK : Lending Pools in Decentralized Finance

    Massimo Bartoletti, James Hsin-yu Chiang, and Alberto Lluch-Lafuente. SoK : Lending Pools in Decentralized Finance . In Financial Cryptography and Data Security. FC 2021 International Workshops ( CoDecFin ) , volume 12676 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 553--578. Springer, 2021. https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.13230 arXiv:2012.13230 , https://doi....

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-63958-0_40 2021

  9. [9]

    Federal Funds Effective Rate (FEDFUNDS)

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US) . Federal Funds Effective Rate (FEDFUNDS) . https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FEDFUNDS. Retrieved from FRED, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis

    work page

  10. [10]

    Mapping the DeFi crime landscape: an evidence-based picture

    Catherine Carpentier-Desjardins, Masarah Paquet-Clouston, Stefan Kitzler, and Bernhard Haslhofer. Mapping the DeFi crime landscape: an evidence-based picture. Journal of Cybersecurity , 11(1):tyae029, 2025. URL: https://academic.oup.com/cybersecurity/article/11/1/tyae029/7962044, https://doi.org/10.1093/cybsec/tyae029 doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyae029

    work page doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyae029 2025

  11. [11]

    Compound: The Money Market Protocol

    Compound Labs . Compound: The Money Market Protocol . White Paper, 2019. URL: https://compound.finance/documents/Compound.Whitepaper.pdf

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    SoK : Yield aggregators in DeFi

    Simon Cousaert, Jiahua Xu, and Toshiko Matsui. SoK : Yield aggregators in DeFi . In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency ( ICBC ) . IEEE, 2022. https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.13891 arXiv:2105.13891 , https://doi.org/10.1109/ICBC54727.2022.9805523 doi:10.1109/ICBC54727.2022.9805523

    work page doi:10.1109/icbc54727.2022.9805523 2022

  13. [13]

    \ 292M Kelp DAO Hack Triggers Aave Crisis, rsETH Market Freeze --- Here's What Really Happened

    Crypto Citizens Network . \ 292M Kelp DAO Hack Triggers Aave Crisis, rsETH Market Freeze --- Here's What Really Happened . https://www.ccn.com/education/crypto/kelp-dao-rseth-292m-hack-aave-liquidity-crisis-explained/

    work page

  14. [14]

    stETH Yield Pool -- DeFiLlama Yields

    DeFiLlama . stETH Yield Pool -- DeFiLlama Yields . https://defillama.com/yields/pool/747c1d2a-c668-4682-b9f9-296708a3dd90. Historical APY data for Lido stETH

    work page

  15. [15]

    DefiLlama

    DefiLlama Team . DefiLlama . URL: https://defillama.com/

    work page

  16. [16]

    EigenLayer: The Restaking Collective

    EigenLayer . EigenLayer: The Restaking Collective . White Paper, 2023. Available at https://docs.eigenlayer.xyz/

    work page 2023

  17. [17]

    Erigon (formerly turbo-geth)

    Erigon. Erigon (formerly turbo-geth). https://github.com/erigontech/erigon. Accessed: 2026-01-19

    work page 2026

  18. [18]

    Ethereum ( ETH ) Blockchain Explorer

    etherscan.io. Ethereum ( ETH ) Blockchain Explorer . URL: https://etherscan.io/

    work page

  19. [19]

    Empirical and theoretical analysis of liquid staking protocols

    Krzysztof Gogol, Benjamin Kraner, Malte Schlosser, Tao Yan, Claudio Tessone, and Burkhard Stiller. Empirical and theoretical analysis of liquid staking protocols. arXiv:2401.16353 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    SoK: Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and Emerging Trends in Restaking

    Krzysztof Gogol, Yaron Velner, Benjamin Kraner, and Claudio Tessone. SoK: Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs) and Emerging Trends in Restaking . arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.00644 , 2024

    work page arXiv 2024

  21. [21]

    Disentangling Decentralized Finance ( DeFi ) Compositions

    Stefan Kitzler, Friedhelm Victor, Pietro Saggese, and Bernhard Haslhofer. Disentangling Decentralized Finance ( DeFi ) Compositions . ACM Transactions on the Web , 17(2):1--26, May 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532857 doi:10.1145/3532857

    work page doi:10.1145/3532857 2023

  22. [22]

    Lido: Liquid Staking Protocol

    Lido Finance . Lido: Liquid Staking Protocol . https://stake.lido.fi/. Liquid staking platform for Ethereum and other proof-of-stake blockchains

    work page

  23. [23]

    Werner, Jiahua Xu, and Benjamin Livshits

    Daniel Perez, Sam M. Werner, Jiahua Xu, and Benjamin Livshits. Liquidations: DeFi on a Knife - Edge . In Nikita Borisov and Claudia Diaz, editors, Financial Cryptography and Data Security , Lecture Notes in Computer Science , pages 457--476, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2021. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0_24 doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0_24

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-662-64331-0_24 2021

  24. [24]

    An empirical study of DeFi liquidations: incentives, risks, and instabilities

    Kaihua Qin, Liyi Zhou, Pablo Gamito, Philipp Jovanovic, and Arthur Gervais. An empirical study of DeFi liquidations: incentives, risks, and instabilities. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM Internet Measurement Conference , IMC '21, pages 336--350, New York, NY, USA, November 2021. Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3487552.3487811 d...

    work page doi:10.1145/3487552.3487811 2021

  25. [25]

    Renzo Protocol Documentation

    Renzo Protocol . Renzo Protocol Documentation . URL: https://docs.renzoprotocol.com/docs/

    work page

  26. [26]

    Network analysis of ERC20 tokens trading on Ethereum blockchain

    Shahar Somin, Goren Gordon, and Yaniv Altshuler. Network analysis of ERC20 tokens trading on Ethereum blockchain . In International Conference on Complex Systems , pages 439--450. Springer, 2018

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    4byte.sourcify.dev

    Sourcify. 4byte.sourcify.dev. URL: https://4byte.sourcify.dev/

    work page

  28. [28]

    Contagion in decentralized lending protocols: A case study of Compound

    Natkamon Tovanich, Myriam Kassoul, Simon Weidenholzer, and Julien Prat. Contagion in decentralized lending protocols: A case study of Compound . In Proceedings of the 2023 Workshop on Decentralized Finance and Security (DeFi@CCS '23) . Association for Computing Machinery, 2023. URL: https://hal.science/hal-04221228, https://doi.org/10.1145/3605768.3623544...

    work page doi:10.1145/3605768.3623544 2023

  29. [29]

    Measuring Ethereum-based ERC20 token networks

    Friedhelm Victor and Bianca Katharina L \"u ders. Measuring Ethereum-based ERC20 token networks . In International conference on financial cryptography and data security , pages 113--129. Springer, 2019

    work page 2019

  30. [30]

    Speculative multipliers on DeFi : Quantifying on-chain leverage risks

    Zhipeng Wang, Kaihua Qin, Duc Vu Minh, and Arthur Gervais. Speculative multipliers on DeFi : Quantifying on-chain leverage risks. In Financial Cryptography and Data Security ( FC 2022) , Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-18283-9_3 doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18283-9_3

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-18283-9_3 2022

  31. [31]

    Deciphering defi: A comprehensive analysis and visualization of risks in decentralized finance

    Tim Weing \"a rtner, Fabian Fasser, Pedro Reis S \'a da Costa, and Walter Farkas. Deciphering defi: A comprehensive analysis and visualization of risks in decentralized finance. Journal of risk and financial management , 16(10):454, 2023

    work page 2023

  32. [32]

    Reap the Harvest on Blockchain : A Survey of Yield Farming Protocols

    Jiahua Xu and Yebo Feng. Reap the Harvest on Blockchain : A Survey of Yield Farming Protocols . IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management , 20(1):858--869, 2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.04194 arXiv:2210.04194 , https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2022.3222815 doi:10.1109/TNSM.2022.3222815

    work page doi:10.1109/tnsm.2022.3222815 2023

  33. [33]

    SoK : Decentralized exchanges ( DEX ) with automated market maker ( AMM ) protocols

    Jiahua Xu, Krzysztof Paruch, Simon Cousaert, and Yebo Feng. SoK : Decentralized exchanges ( DEX ) with automated market maker ( AMM ) protocols. ACM Computing Surveys , 55(11):1--50, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1145/3570639 doi:10.1145/3570639

    work page doi:10.1145/3570639 2023

  34. [34]

    Systemic risk in defi: A network-based fragility analysis of tvl dynamics

    Shiyu Zhang, Zining Wang, Jin Zheng, and John Cartlidge. Systemic risk in defi: A network-based fragility analysis of tvl dynamics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.08540 , 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  35. [35]

    Blockchain network analysis: A comparative study of decentralized banks

    Yufan Zhang, Zichao Chen, Yutong Sun, Yulin Liu, and Luyao Zhang. Blockchain network analysis: A comparative study of decentralized banks . In Intelligent Computing. SAI 2023 (Computing Conference) , volume 711 of Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems , pages 1022--1042. Springer, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-37717-4_67 doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37717-4_67

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-37717-4_67 2023