- elixer·Last edited by elixer on Feb 12, 2024Linked with GitHubContributed by
There is no commentSelect some text and then click Comment, or simply add a comment to this page from below to start a discussion.Farcaster NFT
Learn More →
Read more
Comparative Analysis of Decentralized Stablecoin Protocols: MakerDAO (Ethereum) vs. Bucket Protocol (Sui)
Comparative Analysis of Decentralized Stablecoin Protocols: MakerDAO (Ethereum) vs. Bucket Protocol (Sui)Executive SummaryThe landscape of decentralized finance (DeFi) is rapidly evolving, with stablecoins serving as a critical bridge between the volatile cryptocurrency markets and traditional financial systems. This report provides a comprehensive comparative analysis of two prominent decentralized stablecoin protocols: MakerDAO on the Ethereum blockchain and Bucket Protocol on the Sui blockchain. Both protocols leverage Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) models to issue their respective stablecoins, DAI and BUCK, which are soft-pegged to the U.S. dollar.MakerDAO, a pioneer in the DeFi space, demonstrates a mature and robust architecture with a strong emphasis on community-driven decentralized governance. Its stablecoin, DAI, is backed by a diverse multi-collateral portfolio, including real-world assets, and is managed through a sophisticated array of stability mechanisms and a dynamic MKR tokenomics model designed for long-term solvency. The protocol benefits from Ethereum's established security and network effects, albeit inheriting its scalability challenges, which are largely addressed through Layer 2 solutions.In contrast, Bucket Protocol represents a newer, high-performance approach within the burgeoning Sui ecosystem. It offers a compelling value proposition with "0% interest loans" and leverages Sui's native scalability, parallel execution, and low transaction costs for enhanced user experience. While its stablecoin, BUCK, employs robust stability mechanisms, its governance model presents a notable ambiguity, oscillating between token-holder governance and a "governance-free" algorithmic design. This distinction highlights a foundational divergence in design philosophies, with MakerDAO leaning towards active, adaptable governance and Bucket Protocol potentially favoring algorithmic immutability or a more streamlined governance process.This analysis delves into the core functionalities, stablecoin mechanics, governance structures, tokenomics, underlying blockchain architectures, and market presence of both protocols, revealing their unique strengths, strategic positioning, and the inherent trade-offs in their design choices.1. Introduction to Decentralized Stablecoin ProtocolsThe Critical Role of Stablecoins in the DeFi LandscapeStablecoins are foundational to the functionality and growth of Decentralized Finance (DeFi), providing a crucial link between the inherent volatility of cryptocurrencies and the relative stability of traditional fiat currencies. They serve as a reliable medium of exchange, a consistent unit of account, and a stable store of value, which are indispensable for a wide array of DeFi applications such as lending, borrowing, trading, and yield farming.1 Without stablecoins, the utility of DeFi would be severely constrained by the unpredictable price swings characteristic of most cryptocurrencies.Unlike centralized stablecoins, such as USDC and USDT, which rely on centralized entities holding fiat currency reserves, decentralized stablecoins like DAI and BUCK are designed to operate transparently and without censorship. Their stability is typically maintained through on-chain mechanisms, often backed by overcollateralized digital assets, ensuring that their issuance and management are governed by smart contracts and community consensus rather than a single authority.1 This architectural choice is central to the ethos of decentralization that underpins the broader DeFi movement.Overview of Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) ModelsBoth MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol are built upon the Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) model, a fundamental primitive in decentralized finance for issuing stablecoins. In a CDP system, users lock digital assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies) as collateral within smart contracts to mint new stablecoins. This process effectively creates a loan, where the minted stablecoin represents a debt against the locked collateral.1The core principle of the CDP model is overcollateralization, meaning the value of the locked assets must always exceed the value of the stablecoins issued. This buffer is crucial for maintaining the stablecoin's peg to its target value (typically the U.S. dollar) and for absorbing potential price fluctuations in the collateral assets. If the value of the collateral falls below a predefined threshold, a liquidation process is triggered to ensure the system remains solvent and the stablecoin's peg is preserved. This mechanism introduces the stablecoin into circulation while simultaneously providing a robust backing mechanism, underpinning the stability and reliability of these decentralized digital currencies.2. MakerDAO: The Ethereum DeFi Cornerstone2.1 Core Functionality and Strategic ObjectivesMakerDAO stands as a pioneering decentralized protocol, established in 2014 by Rune Christensen, with the foundational objective of governing the creation and management of DAI, a stablecoin soft-pegged to the U.S. dollar.1 The protocol's initial vision was to introduce a stable, decentralized digital currency that would operate independently of any single central entity, leveraging the transparency and immutability of the Ethereum blockchain through smart contracts.1 This commitment to decentralization has been a hallmark of MakerDAO since its inception.Functioning as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), MakerDAO empowers its community through the collective decision-making power of Maker (MKR) token holders.1 This governance model allows stakeholders to vote on critical parameters of the protocol, including stability fees, accepted collateral types, and system upgrades, fostering a democratic and transparent ecosystem.1 Over the years, MakerDAO has evolved into one of the largest and most influential DeFi protocols, managing billions in collateral and serving as a foundational asset for a vast array of other decentralized applications within the broader DeFi ecosystem.2The protocol's long operational history, dating back to its founding in 2014, provides a significant advantage in the rapidly evolving and often volatile cryptocurrency space. This extended period of operation means MakerDAO has been battle-tested through multiple market cycles and has successfully navigated various challenges, including significant downturns.2 This track record of resilience and sustained performance inherently cultivates a higher degree of trust and credibility within the DeFi community, positioning DAI as a reliable and robust stablecoin. The ability to endure and adapt over such a prolonged period demonstrates a fundamental soundness in its design and operational mechanisms, which is an invaluable asset for a financial protocol.2.2 DAI Stablecoin Mechanics and Peg StabilityAccepted Collateral Types and OvercollateralizationDAI's stability is fundamentally maintained through an overcollateralized system, which mandates that the value of digital assets locked as collateral must always exceed the value of the DAI issued.1 Initially, when MakerDAO launched, it supported only Ethereum (ETH) as collateral, leading to the creation of what was known as Single-Collateral Dai, or Sai.5 However, recognizing the need for greater diversification and robustness, the protocol underwent a significant upgrade in November 2019, transitioning to Multi-Collateral Dai (MCD). This evolution allowed MakerDAO to accept a wider array of Ethereum-based assets, including various cryptocurrencies, as collateral.2A crucial aspect of this system is that MKR token holders, through the governance process, are responsible for approving specific collateral types and setting their corresponding risk parameters.5 This decentralized vetting process ensures that only assets deemed suitable and properly risk-assessed can back DAI. Furthermore, the protocol has expanded its collateral base to include Real-World Assets (RWA), which represents a strategic move to further diversify its backing and bridge traditional finance with blockchain technology.6 By incorporating RWA, MakerDAO aims to reduce its reliance on highly correlated crypto assets, thereby enhancing the protocol's overall robustness and resilience against market shocks. This diversification is not merely an expansion of options; it is a deliberate strategy to mitigate systemic risk, which ultimately contributes to DAI's long-term stability and reliability. A minimum collateralization ratio of 150% is enforced across the system, providing a substantial safety buffer against potential collateral price drops.11Stability MechanismsMakerDAO employs a sophisticated suite of mechanisms to ensure DAI maintains its soft peg to the U.S. dollar:Collateralized Debt Positions (CDPs) / Vaults: These are smart contracts that securely manage user deposits and facilitate the creation of new DAI. Users interact with these vaults to lock their collateral and mint DAI.1Oracles: A decentralized network of oracles provides real-time market price information for all accepted collateral assets to the protocol. This data is critical for monitoring collateral values and triggering liquidations when necessary to maintain solvency.5 To enhance security, the Oracle Security Module (OSM) introduces a one-hour delay in price feeds, providing a crucial defense layer against rapid price manipulation attacks.5Keepers: These are independent, incentivized actors who continuously monitor the Maker Protocol for arbitrage opportunities. They play a vital role in maintaining the DAI peg by buying DAI when its market price falls below $1 and selling it when it rises above $1, thereby providing liquidity and correcting price deviations.5Dai Savings Rate (DSR): The DSR allows any DAI holder to earn savings by locking their DAI into a special contract. MKR holders can dynamically adjust the DSR to influence the supply and demand for DAI. If DAI's market price rises above $1, the DSR can be decreased to reduce demand and encourage more DAI creation. Conversely, if DAI's price falls below $1, the DSR can be increased to stimulate demand and reduce supply, helping to pull the price back to its peg.5 This dynamic adjustment mechanism acts as an active monetary policy tool, allowing the protocol to fine-tune its peg in real-time. This goes beyond static collateralization, demonstrating an adaptive and proactive resilience mechanism crucial for long-term stability in volatile crypto markets.Peg Stability Module (PSM): The PSM is a critical feature designed to maintain the dollar peg more effectively by allowing 1:1 swaps between DAI and other centralized stablecoins like USDC. This module provides a direct arbitrage opportunity that helps to keep DAI's price tightly coupled to $1, especially during periods of high market demand or supply.6Emergency Shutdown: As a last-resort mechanism, the Emergency Shutdown can be triggered by MKR holders to protect the protocol from severe attacks or to facilitate major system upgrades. When activated, it prevents further vault creation, freezes price feeds, and allows users to safely withdraw their underlying collateral, acting as a circuit breaker for extreme scenarios.5Key Risk ParametersMKR holders actively vote on and adjust a specific set of risk parameters for each accepted collateral asset, allowing for granular and decentralized risk management.5 This tailored approach enables MakerDAO to precisely calibrate its risk exposure based on the volatility and characteristics of individual assets, rather than applying a generic rule. This flexibility is essential for maintaining the overall health and solvency of a multi-collateral system in a dynamic market environment, enhancing its robustness against specific asset-related risks. These parameters include:Debt Ceiling: The maximum amount of DAI that can be generated against a specific collateral type. This parameter ensures diversification of the collateral portfolio and prevents over-reliance on any single asset.5Stability Fee: An annual percentage yield charged on the DAI generated against a Vault's collateral. This fee is paid in DAI and is dynamically adjusted by MakerDAO governance based on market conditions to manage supply and demand for DAI.5Liquidation Ratio: The collateral-to-debt ratio below which a Vault is deemed undercollateralized and becomes subject to liquidation. A lower ratio indicates expected low price volatility for the collateral, while a higher ratio suggests high volatility.5Liquidation Penalty: A fee added to a Vault’s total outstanding generated DAI when liquidation occurs. This penalty incentivizes Vault owners to maintain appropriate collateral levels and avoid liquidation.5Other parameters such as Collateral Auction Duration, Auction Bid Duration, and Auction Step Size are also set by governance to optimize the liquidation process.5Liquidation ProcessAutomated liquidation processes are a cornerstone of DAI's stability, triggered when a Vault's collateral-to-debt ratio falls below its specific Liquidation Ratio.1 The process involves several stages:Collateral Auction: The protocol sells the liquidated collateral through an internal market-based auction mechanism to cover the Vault’s outstanding obligations and the Liquidation Penalty.5 If enough DAI is bid, the auction converts to a Reverse Collateral Auction to sell the minimum necessary collateral, returning any leftover to the original Vault owner.5Debt Auction: If a Collateral Auction fails to raise sufficient DAI to cover the Vault's obligations, the deficit becomes Protocol debt. This debt is initially covered by the Maker Buffer, a fund accumulated from collected fees. If the Buffer is insufficient, new MKR tokens are minted by the system and sold to bidders for DAI, thereby increasing the total MKR supply.5Surplus Auction: Conversely, if DAI proceeds from auctions and Stability Fee payments exceed the Maker Buffer's predefined limit, the surplus DAI is used to buy back and burn MKR tokens, effectively reducing the total MKR supply.5This multi-stage liquidation process, particularly the role of MKR in Debt and Surplus Auctions, functions as a critical self-correcting financial backstop. The fact that MKR holders face dilution if the system incurs bad debt (via Debt Auctions) and benefit from deflationary pressure if there's a surplus (via Surplus Auctions) creates a powerful and direct alignment of incentives. This mechanism ensures that the financial well-being of MKR holders is intrinsically linked to the solvency and efficient management of the entire DAI system, thereby promoting active and responsible governance.2.3 Governance Model and DecentralizationMakerDAO operates as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), a structure established in 2014, with its management entrusted to a global community of MKR token holders.1 This decentralized governance model is a core tenet of the protocol, ensuring that decisions are made collectively rather than by a single entity.Decision-making within MakerDAO follows a system of "scientific governance," which involves two primary mechanisms:Governance Polling: These polls are conducted to establish a broad consensus of community sentiment on various issues before any formal Executive Votes are cast. This preliminary step ensures that governance decisions are thoroughly considered and reflect community preferences prior to formal implementation.5Executive Voting: These votes are held to formally approve or reject proposed changes to the system's state. Examples include ratifying risk parameters for new collateral types or initiating system upgrades. The proposal with the highest number of approval votes becomes the "Active Proposal" and gains administrative access to modify the Maker Protocol's internal governance variables.5Voting power is directly held by MKR token holders, with their voting weight proportional to the amount of MKR they stake in the designated voting contract.5 While MKR holders cast the votes, any individual, regardless of their MKR holdings, can submit proposals for an MKR vote.5 To enhance participation, MakerDAO also supports a delegated voting model, allowing MKR holders to assign their voting power to other individuals or entities, known as delegates, who then vote on their behalf.1MakerDAO is actively pursuing deeper decentralization through its ambitious "Endgame" strategy. This initiative includes the development of Governance AI Tools, the Atlas (a comprehensive governance rulebook), and the Sagittarius Lockstake Engine (SLE), all designed to further incentivize and democratize participation in governance.2 A significant component of the "Endgame" is the introduction of specialized, semi-independent SubDAOs, such as FacilitatorDAOs (managing internal mechanisms), AllocatorDAOs (generating and allocating DAI across DeFi), and MiniDAOs (exploring innovative concepts).2 These SubDAOs aim to streamline governance, reduce the cognitive load on the core protocol, and foster rapid experimentation within the broader ecosystem.Despite these advancements, the degree of decentralization in MakerDAO presents inherent complexities. While the Maker Foundation has publicly stated its plan to dissolve, signaling a strong commitment to full decentralization 5, a notable challenge is the concentration of voting power. Reports indicate that the top three MKR holders control over 78% of the voting power.11 This observation highlights an inherent tension between theoretical decentralization and practical power distribution in large DAOs. While the framework is designed for broad participation, the reality can sometimes lean towards a more centralized control if token holdings are concentrated. To mitigate risks associated with malicious proposals, the Governance Security Module (GSM) introduces a potential delay of up to 24 hours for voter-approved modifications, providing a window for MKR holders to trigger an Emergency Shutdown if necessary.5MakerDAO's governance model clearly illustrates that decentralization is not a static destination but an ongoing, iterative process. The "Endgame" strategy and the introduction of SubDAOs are ambitious steps towards distributing control and fostering innovation. However, the acknowledged concentration of voting power underscores the continuous challenge of achieving true decentralization while simultaneously ensuring efficient decision-making and robust security. This dynamic interplay between theoretical ideals and practical implementation is a defining characteristic of MakerDAO's evolution.2.4 MKR TokenomicsThe Maker (MKR) token is integral to the MakerDAO ecosystem, serving as its primary governance and recapitalization mechanism.16 Its tokenomics are uniquely designed to align the incentives of its holders directly with the solvency and success of the DAI stablecoin.The utility of MKR encompasses several key functions:Governance: MKR grants its holders voting rights over the development and management of the Maker Protocol. This includes crucial decisions such as adding new collateral asset types, amending risk parameters (e.g., stability fees, liquidation ratios), changing the Dai Savings Rate, and approving platform upgrades.6 The voting power is directly proportional to the amount of MKR staked.5Fee Burning: Stability fees paid by users when generating DAI are collected and used to buy back and burn MKR tokens from the open market.5 This mechanism effectively reduces the total supply of MKR over time, creating deflationary pressure and increasing the scarcity of the token.Recapitalization: In scenarios where the MakerDAO system becomes undercollateralized (i.e., the value of the collateral backing DAI falls below the value of the issued DAI, leading to bad debt), new MKR tokens can be automatically minted and sold on the open market through a "debt auction" to cover the shortfall.5 This process increases the total supply of MKR. Conversely, if there is a surplus of DAI from liquidations or stability fees beyond the Maker Buffer's capacity, these funds are used to buy back and burn MKR tokens, reducing supply.5The supply of MKR is not hard-capped; instead, it is dynamic and fluctuates based on market conditions and the overall financial health of the DAI ecosystem.6 This dynamic supply mechanism is a powerful economic feedback loop that directly links the financial well-being of MKR holders to the solvency and efficient management of the entire DAI system. MKR holders have a vested interest in ensuring the system remains healthy, as their tokens might be diluted if the system incurs bad debt, but they benefit from deflationary pressure when the system generates a surplus.6 This creates a strong incentive for active and responsible governance.The value of MKR tokens is therefore expected to appreciate in accordance with the success and stability of DAI itself.6 Initial distribution of MKR allocated significant portions to founders, projects, and the core team.16In a significant strategic evolution, MakerDAO has recently announced its official rebranding to "Sky," under which MKR will be replaced by the SKY governance token at a 1:24,000 conversion ratio. Similarly, DAI will be replaced by the USDS stablecoin.19 This rebranding signifies a strategic move to simplify the ecosystem, enhance user experience, and potentially attract a broader user base, indicating a proactive approach to market adaptation and future growth.2.5 Technical Architecture on EthereumMakerDAO is built on the Ethereum blockchain, leveraging its robust smart contract capabilities to facilitate the issuance and management of DAI.1 Ethereum, as a foundational Layer 1 (L1) blockchain, provides a high degree of decentralization, security, and immutability, which are critical attributes for a stablecoin protocol.However, Ethereum's architecture, particularly before its transition to Proof-of-Stake, has historically faced inherent scalability limitations. The network typically processes around 15-30 transactions per second (TPS), which, during periods of high demand, can lead to significant network congestion and elevated transaction costs (known as "gas fees").21 These performance bottlenecks can hinder the user experience for decentralized applications (dApps) built on the network.To address these limitations, the Ethereum ecosystem heavily relies on Layer 2 (L2) scaling solutions. These solutions, such as Optimistic Rollups, ZK-Rollups, Plasma, and Validiums, process transactions off-chain and then batch them onto the main Ethereum chain, thereby improving throughput and reducing costs.21 There are currently over 40 L2 solutions within the Ethereum ecosystem, collectively managing a substantial Total Value Locked (TVL).21Ethereum's significant transition from a Proof-of-Work (PoW) to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, known as "The Merge," was a pivotal step aimed at enhancing both security and energy efficiency. This transition also lays the groundwork for future scalability upgrades, such as shard chains, which will enable parallel processing of transactions.22MakerDAO's choice of Ethereum as its base layer provides the benefit of a highly secure, decentralized, and battle-tested blockchain with an extensive developer ecosystem. However, this choice inherently means the protocol inherits Ethereum's native scalability limitations and higher transaction costs. This necessitates reliance on Layer 2 solutions, which, while effective, can introduce additional layers of complexity for users and developers interacting with the protocol. This represents a fundamental trade-off: MakerDAO prioritizes the established security and decentralization of Ethereum, even if it comes at the cost of native high throughput and low transaction fees, contrasting with newer chains designed explicitly for performance.2.6 Market Presence and AdoptionMakerDAO holds a dominant and deeply entrenched position within the decentralized finance landscape, widely regarded as a "blue-chip" DeFi protocol on Ethereum.6 Its stablecoin, DAI, has achieved widespread adoption and is seamlessly integrated across a vast array of DeFi applications. It serves as a foundational asset for major lending and borrowing platforms like Aave and Compound, plays a crucial role in decentralized exchanges (DEXs) such as Uniswap and Curve, and is extensively utilized in various yield farming strategies.1The protocol manages a substantial Total Value Locked (TVL) on Ethereum, with figures reported at $2.858 billion 23 and $5.18 billion 6 (it is important to note that TVL figures are dynamic and can fluctuate). The MKR governance token also commands a significant market capitalization, approximately $1.155 billion.23 The protocol boasts a large and active community, with over 111,430 MKR holders.6MakerDAO's long operational history and its demonstrated resilience during various market conditions, including severe downturns, have significantly bolstered trust in the system.2 This proven ability to maintain stability and solvency through periods of extreme volatility has solidified its reputation as a reliable and robust stablecoin issuer. The substantial TVL and its role as a "foundational asset" for numerous other DeFi protocols on Ethereum signify deep market entrenchment and powerful network effects. Its long-standing presence and proven resilience have cultivated significant trust, positioning it as a leading DeFi protocol. This established dominance makes it highly competitive, as new protocols face the challenge of replicating such extensive integration and user confidence.3. Bucket Protocol: The Sui Ecosystem Innovator3.1 Core Functionality and Strategic ObjectivesBucket Protocol is a decentralized stablecoin protocol specifically built on the Sui blockchain, with the primary objective of maintaining a stable value of 1 USD for its native stablecoin, BUCK.3 The protocol offers a compelling value proposition to users: the ability to draw "0% interest loans" by locking up over-collateralized crypto assets.7 This feature directly addresses a key cost for borrowers in DeFi, potentially attracting a large user base by offering higher capital efficiency.Bucket Protocol strategically positions itself as a "DeFi Engine" and a "next-generation Liquidity Layer" within the Sui network.7 This positioning indicates an ambition to be a core infrastructure component, deeply integrated into the growth and development of its native blockchain. The protocol's mission is clearly defined: to expand BUCK's use cases, strengthen the overall Sui ecosystem, and significantly boost its liquidity.25 This suggests a symbiotic relationship with the Sui network's development, where Bucket Protocol aims to be a fundamental building block for the chain's burgeoning DeFi landscape.3.2 BUCK Stablecoin Mechanics and Peg StabilityAccepted Collateral TypesBUCK operates as an over-collateralized stablecoin, meaning its issuance is contingent upon users depositing digital assets into the protocol with a value exceeding the amount of BUCK minted.3 Bucket Protocol supports a diverse range of assets as collateral, including the native Sui token (SUI), Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Liquid Staking Tokens (LST).4 A minimum collateral ratio of 110% is required for loans.7This lower minimum collateralization ratio of 110% compared to MakerDAO's 150% offers significantly higher capital efficiency for borrowers, allowing them to extract more stablecoin value from their locked collateral. While attractive, this also implies a thinner buffer against sudden collateral price drops. This design choice prioritizes capital efficiency, which inherently comes with a higher risk profile, as a smaller percentage drop in collateral value can trigger liquidations more quickly, especially during periods of extreme market volatility.Stability MechanismsBucket Protocol employs a comprehensive set of mechanisms to maintain BUCK's $1 peg and ensure system solvency:Over-collateralization: The foundational principle where the value of deposited collateral consistently exceeds the value of BUCK minted.3Bucket System: Each supported collateral type is managed within its own "bucket," allowing for specific parameters, including liquidation ratios and stability fees, to be applied to different assets based on their risk profiles.3Oracles: Trusted price feeds are integrated to monitor collateral values in real-time, ensuring the system remains properly backed and enabling timely liquidations.3Liquidations: Automated processes are in place to liquidate undercollateralized positions, which are crucial for maintaining BUCK's $1 peg and the overall solvency of the system.3Redemption Mechanism: This feature allows users to redeem BUCK for the underlying collateral at prevailing exchange rates. Critically, this mechanism prioritizes the "riskiest Bottles" (Collateralized Debt Positions) for redemption, which helps to improve the overall system collateralization and establish a price floor for BUCK near $1.4Tank: This mechanism serves as a primary defense for solvency. It liquidates "Bottles" (CDPs) that fall below their minimum collateralization ratio and distributes the liquidated collateral to "Tank Contributors" who have deposited BUCK into the Tank.4Recovery Mode: This mode is activated when the Total Collateralization Ratio (TCR) of the entire system drops below 150%. When engaged, it triggers additional liquidations for Bottles whose collateralization ratios are between 110% and the current TCR. This process is designed to incentivize increased deposits into the system, thereby enhancing its overall stability and preventing a systemic crisis.4Peg Stability Module (PSM): Similar to MakerDAO, Bucket Protocol utilizes a PSM to maintain BUCK's peg through a 1:1 conversion rate with other stablecoins like USDC/USDT. This module facilitates arbitrage opportunities: if BUCK's value goes above $1, users can exchange BUCK for other stablecoins, creating selling pressure. Conversely, if BUCK's value falls below $1, users can buy BUCK, creating buying pressure that helps stabilize its value.4Bucket Protocol employs a comprehensive set of stability mechanisms that are sophisticated and appear tailored for the Sui ecosystem's high-throughput environment. The "Tank" and "Recovery Mode" are particularly notable, demonstrating a proactive and systemic approach to managing solvency and maintaining the peg. This indicates a well-thought-out design to ensure BUCK's stability within the high-performance Sui network.Risk Parameters and Borrowing CostsBucket Protocol advertises "0% interest loans" 7, a compelling feature designed to attract borrowers by eliminating traditional interest accrual on the principal. However, the provided information also indicates a more nuanced cost structure. Users are required to return "accrued stability fees" to retrieve their collateral 3, and liquidation penalties are also a component of borrowing costs.27 Each supported collateral type operates within its own "bucket" with specific parameters, including liquidation ratios and stability fees.3The apparent contradiction between "0% interest loans" and "accrued stability fees" is a critical point for users to understand. It suggests that while there might be no variable interest rate on the loan principal itself, other fees (e.g., one-time minting fees, ongoing stability fees, or penalties for undercollateralization) are still applicable. This nuanced cost structure, if not clearly communicated, could lead to user confusion or misperception regarding the true cost of borrowing, impacting the protocol's transparency. It implies that "0% interest" might be a marketing simplification, and users need to understand the full fee schedule to accurately assess their borrowing costs.Liquidation ProcessAutomated liquidations are a fundamental mechanism for maintaining BUCK's stability and ensuring the protocol's solvency.3 The "Tank" mechanism plays a central role in this process, ensuring solvency by liquidating undercollateralized "Bottles" (CDPs).4 Additionally, "Recovery Mode" acts as a system-wide liquidation trigger, activating when the Total Collateralization Ratio (TCR) falls below 150%.4 The "Redemption Mechanism" also contributes to peg maintenance by allowing BUCK to be redeemed for collateral, specifically targeting and prioritizing risky positions to improve overall system collateralization.4 These mechanisms demonstrate a proactive approach to maintaining system solvency. They are designed to quickly address undercollateralized positions and prevent cascading defaults, which is crucial for a stablecoin, especially given its lower collateralization ratio compared to MakerDAO, as it provides a robust safety net against rapid market movements.3.3 Governance Model and DecentralizationThe governance model of Bucket Protocol presents a notable ambiguity. On one hand, the available information states that the protocol is governed by BKT token holders, who possess the ability to propose and vote on changes to system parameters.3 BKT tokens are explicitly described as providing "governance rights and other benefits" to participants within the ecosystem.3However, a direct statement from Bucket Protocol's official website, as cited in the research, claims a "governance-free model." This statement asserts that "all its parameters are preset and algorithmically controlled, which allows for autonomous and efficient operation without the need for governance intervention".4This simultaneous claim of BKT token holder governance and a "governance-free model" creates a fundamental contradiction regarding Bucket Protocol's true degree of decentralization and its adaptability. If the protocol is genuinely "governance-free," it implies a rigid, immutable system where parameters are fixed and controlled solely by algorithms. Such a design could offer predictability and reduced governance overhead but would severely limit the protocol's ability to adapt to unforeseen market conditions, implement necessary upgrades, or address potential vulnerabilities without requiring a hard fork. Conversely, if BKT governance is indeed active, the "governance-free" claim is misleading, potentially indicating a more centralized or limited scope of governance than initially implied. This ambiguity is a critical factor for assessing the protocol's long-term resilience, its capacity for evolution, and its responsiveness to both market dynamics and community needs. The lack of clarity on this fundamental aspect introduces uncertainty for users and investors evaluating the protocol's long-term viability and its ability to navigate the complex and rapidly changing DeFi landscape.3.4 BUT/BKT TokenomicsThe native token for Bucket Protocol is referred to interchangeably as BUT and BKT in the provided information.3 For consistency, this analysis will refer to it as BUT/BKT.The utility of the BUT/BKT token is primarily centered around enabling the core functions of the Bucket Protocol and fostering growth within the Sui ecosystem:Stablecoin Minting and Liquidity: The token empowers users to mint the $BUCK stablecoin by locking various assets as collateral. By participating in this process, users can unlock opportunities for yield generation and leveraged liquidity across the Sui ecosystem.25Ecosystem Incentives: The token is designed to support the sustainability of the Sui ecosystem and boost its overall liquidity.25Governance: While conflicting with the "governance-free" claim, the token is stated to provide governance rights, allowing holders to propose and vote on system parameters.3The total supply of BUT/BKT is fixed at 1 billion tokens.28 The current circulating supply is approximately 395 million tokens.26The token distribution strategy includes significant allocations: 33% for the Ecosystem, 15% for the Team, 15% for Pre-Sale, 10% for Airdrop, 10% for Reserve, 8% for Liquidity, 5% for Marketing, and 2% each for Partners and Advisors.29 The Initial Coin Offering (ICO) for BUT/BKT took place from January 10 to January 13, 2025, raising $750,000 at a price of $0.005 per token, with an initial Fully Diluted Valuation (FDV) of $5 million.28A substantial portion of the tokens, approximately 71.6%, remains locked under a vesting schedule.29 This includes linear unlock schedules over several years for Ecosystem, Team, Pre-Sale, and Reserve allocations.29 The tokenomics of BUT/BKT are designed to foster growth and liquidity within the Sui ecosystem. The large allocation to "Ecosystem" and "Airdrop" suggests a community-focused distribution strategy aimed at driving widespread adoption and participation within the Sui network. Furthermore, the long vesting schedules for team and pre-sale tokens indicate a commitment to the project's long-term health and stability, preventing immediate large-scale sell-offs that could destabilize the token price. This aligns the incentives of early contributors with the sustained success of the protocol.3.5 Technical Architecture on SuiBucket Protocol is built on the Sui blockchain, a relatively newer, high-performance Layer 1 (L1) network designed to address the scalability and efficiency challenges prevalent in earlier blockchain architectures.3A key architectural innovation of Sui is its novel data model, which enables most transactions to be processed independently and simultaneously through parallel execution. This is achieved using a concept known as Byzantine Consistent Broadcast, a significant departure from traditional blockchains that typically require global consensus for every transaction.32 This parallel processing capability is a cornerstone of Sui's performance advantages.The benefits of Sui's architecture are substantial:High Scalability: Sui is engineered for mass adoption, capable of processing thousands of transactions per second (TPS).31Instant Finality: Transactions on Sui can achieve finality within seconds, significantly improving the user experience for dApps requiring rapid confirmation.32Lower Transaction Costs: By optimizing data processing and reducing the computational resources required for transactions, Sui maintains low gas fees even during periods of high network activity.31Move Programming Language: Sui utilizes the Move programming language, originally developed by Meta. Move offers enhanced security and flexibility for building smart contracts through its resource-oriented programming model, which helps developers write safer and more efficient code.32Object-Based Design: Sui's unique object-based design is particularly well-suited for applications involving Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and Web3 gaming, enabling true digital ownership and dynamic asset management.32Robust Security: Despite its focus on speed and efficiency, Sui maintains a strong emphasis on security. Its architecture is designed to be resilient to attacks, and transaction integrity is ensured through validation by multiple nodes.12Bucket Protocol's foundation on Sui provides a significant architectural advantage over protocols built on older, less scalable L1s like Ethereum. Sui's native parallel execution, instant finality, and low gas fees directly address the performance bottlenecks that often affect dApps on congested networks. This allows Bucket Protocol to offer a smoother, faster, and more cost-effective user experience without relying on complex Layer 2 solutions. This inherent scalability positions Bucket Protocol to handle high transaction volumes and attract users seeking efficient DeFi interactions, potentially enabling use cases that would be less feasible or prohibitively expensive on other blockchain infrastructures.3.6 Market Presence and AdoptionBucket Protocol has demonstrated rapid growth and quickly established a significant market presence within the emerging Sui ecosystem. It has become the leading Collateralized Debt Position (CDP) protocol on Sui, indicating its pivotal role in the network's DeFi infrastructure.33The protocol's Total Value Locked (TVL) on Sui stands at $110.85 million.33 Notably, within just one month of its launch, Bucket Protocol ascended to become a "top 10 DeFi application" on the Sui blockchain, managing over $110 million in TVL.25 This rapid ascent underscores strong early adoption and a strategic advantage in a less saturated, high-growth environment.Bucket Protocol also reports annualized fees and revenue of $5.45 million 33, reflecting its active usage and economic activity. The BUCK stablecoin itself has a market capitalization of 72.42 million.34 The protocol's mission to expand BUCK's use cases, strengthen the Sui ecosystem, and boost its overall liquidity further solidifies its position as a critical infrastructure provider for Sui's burgeoning DeFi landscape.25 This early dominance allows Bucket Protocol to capture significant market share and influence within its native chain as the Sui ecosystem continues to mature.4. Comparative Analysis: Key Distinctions and SimilaritiesThis section provides a direct comparison of MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol across their fundamental design choices, operational mechanics, and market positioning.4.1 Core Design PhilosophyThe core design philosophies of MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol represent a fundamental divergence in approaches to decentralized stablecoin issuance.MakerDAO embodies a philosophy of robust, community-governed decentralization. Its design prioritizes resilience and adaptability through active stakeholder involvement, allowing for continuous evolution and sophisticated risk management via MKR governance.1 The protocol's long history reflects an iterative, battle-tested approach to decentralized finance, where human collective intelligence and democratic processes are central to its long-term stability and security. This commitment to active, evolving decentralized governance signifies a belief in human collective intelligence for dynamic adaptation to unforeseen circumstances.Bucket Protocol, on the other hand, appears to prioritize capital efficiency, notably through its "0% interest loans," and leverages its underlying blockchain's high performance for an optimized user experience.7 Its governance model presents a significant dichotomy: while some sources indicate BKT token holder governance, the official website claims a "governance-free" model with preset, algorithmically controlled parameters.3 This ambiguity suggests a philosophy that might favor efficiency and predictability over broad, active governance, potentially implying a more streamlined or immutable protocol. If Bucket Protocol truly aims for a "governance-free" model, it implies a preference for algorithmic immutability, which could offer predictability and reduced governance overhead but at the cost of flexibility and responsiveness to unforeseen circumstances or community desires. This difference will dictate their respective abilities to respond to black swan events, regulatory changes, or technological advancements, and will profoundly impact their long-term trajectories and risk profiles.4.2 Stablecoin Mechanisms ComparedBoth protocols utilize an overcollateralized CDP model, but their specific implementations and risk appetites vary significantly.Collateral Diversity and Overcollateralization Ratios MakerDAO: Accepts a wide range of multi-collateral, including Ethereum (ETH), various other cryptocurrencies, and increasingly, Real-World Assets (RWA).2 It maintains a relatively conservative minimum overcollateralization ratio of 150%.11 This higher ratio provides a larger safety buffer against collateral price volatility, reducing the risk of bad debt during market downturns. Bucket Protocol: Also supports multi-collateral, including the native Sui token (SUI), Bitcoin (BTC), Ethereum (ETH), and Liquid Staking Tokens (LSTs).4 However, it operates with a lower minimum collateralization ratio of 110%.7 While this offers higher capital efficiency for borrowers, allowing them to mint more stablecoin for the same collateral, it inherently implies a thinner buffer and potentially higher liquidation risk during extreme market conditions.Peg Stability MechanismsMakerDAO: Employs a sophisticated suite of tools to maintain DAI's peg. These include Collateralized Debt Positions (CDPs), decentralized Oracles with a security module delay, Keepers for arbitrage, the dynamic Dai Savings Rate (DSR) to influence demand, a Peg Stability Module (PSM) for 1:1 swaps with other stablecoins, and an Emergency Shutdown mechanism as a last resort.1 The DSR, in particular, acts as an active monetary policy tool, allowing the protocol to dynamically influence the supply and demand for DAI in response to market conditions.Bucket Protocol: Utilizes its own set of robust mechanisms, including CDPs (referred to as "Bottles"), a "Bucket System" for collateral-specific parameters, Oracles, automated Liquidations, Redemptions (prioritizing risky positions), a "Tank" mechanism for systemic solvency, a "Recovery Mode" activated during low system-wide collateralization, and a Peg Stability Module (PSM).3 These mechanisms are designed to leverage the Sui network's high-performance architecture for efficient operation.Liquidation Processes and IncentivesMakerDAO: Features automated multi-stage auctions (Collateral, Debt, and Surplus Auctions). A unique aspect is the dynamic supply of MKR: new MKR tokens are minted and sold to cover debt shortfalls (increasing supply), while MKR is bought back and burned with surplus funds (decreasing supply).5 This directly links MKR holder incentives to the system's solvency, creating a powerful economic feedback loop.Bucket Protocol: Relies on automated liquidations primarily via its "Tank" mechanism and "Recovery Mode" to ensure solvency.4 The "Redemption Mechanism" also plays a role in maintaining the peg by allowing BUCK to be redeemed for collateral, prioritizing risky positions.4 While these are robust, the explicit mechanism for recapitalization via its governance token (BUT/BKT) is not as clearly defined in the available information as MakerDAO's MKR mint/burn dynamic.Borrowing Costs/FeesMakerDAO: Charges variable "Stability Fees" (an annual percentage yield) on generated DAI. These fees are dynamically adjusted by governance based on market conditions to manage supply and demand for DAI.5Bucket Protocol: Advertises "0% interest loans".7 However, the documentation also mentions "accrued stability fees" that users must pay to retrieve collateral 3, along with potential liquidation penalties.27 This suggests a more nuanced fee structure beyond traditional interest, where other charges contribute to the overall borrowing cost.Table 1: Stablecoin Mechanism Comparison (DAI vs. BUCK)FeatureMakerDAO (DAI)Bucket Protocol (BUCK)Underlying BlockchainEthereumSuiCollateralization ModelOvercollateralized CDP / VaultsOvercollateralized CDP / BottlesMinimum Collateralization Ratio150% 11110% 7Key Stability MechanismsCDPs, Oracles (with OSM delay), Keepers, Dai Savings Rate (DSR), Peg Stability Module (PSM), Emergency Shutdown 1Overcollateralization, Bucket System, Oracles, Liquidations, Redemptions, Tank, Recovery Mode, Peg Stability Module (PSM) 3Key Liquidation MechanismsAutomated multi-stage auctions (Collateral, Debt, Surplus Auctions); MKR mint/burn for recapitalization 5Automated liquidations via Tank and Recovery Mode; Redemption mechanism 4Borrowing Cost/Fee StructureVariable Stability Fees (annual percentage yield) 5Advertised "0% interest" with "accrued stability fees" and liquidation penalties 34.3 Governance and Decentralization ParadigmsThe governance models of MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol represent fundamentally different approaches to decentralization, which has profound implications for their adaptability and long-term trajectory.MakerDAO: Represents a mature, actively evolving decentralized governance model. It operates as a full DAO where MKR token holders make critical decisions through a structured voting process, including Executive Voting and Governance Polling.1 The protocol is continuously enhancing its decentralization through initiatives like delegated voting and the introduction of specialized SubDAOs, which aim to distribute control and foster innovation.1 The Maker Foundation's explicit plan to dissolve signifies a strong commitment to achieving full decentralization.5 This continuous evolution towards deeper, active decentralized governance reflects a belief in human collective oversight for dynamic adaptation to market changes, regulatory shifts, and unforeseen events.Bucket Protocol: Presents a contradictory and less clear governance model. While BKT token holders are stated to have governance rights and can propose/vote on system parameters 3, the official website claims a "governance-free model" where parameters are "preset and algorithmically controlled" without the need for governance intervention.4 This ambiguity creates a foundational divide. If the "governance-free" claim is truly representative, it implies a preference for algorithmic immutability, which could offer predictability and reduced governance overhead but at the cost of flexibility and responsiveness to unforeseen circumstances or community desires. Such a model might struggle to adapt to black swan events or implement necessary upgrades without a hard fork. Conversely, if BKT governance is active, the "governance-free" claim is misleading, potentially indicating a more centralized or limited scope of governance than initially implied. This difference impacts everything from upgradeability and bug fixes to long-term strategic direction and the very nature of decentralization itself.Table 2: Governance Model ComparisonFeatureMakerDAOBucket ProtocolGovernance TokenMKR (rebranding to SKY) 18BUT / BKT 3Decision-Making ProcessDAO Voting (Executive Voting, Governance Polling) 5BKT token holder voting stated 3, but "governance-free" algorithmic control claimed 4Who Holds Voting PowerMKR token holders (proportional to stake), can delegate 5BKT token holders stated 3Degree of DecentralizationActive, evolving DAO with SubDAOs; aiming for full decentralization, but with some token concentration 1Ambiguous: stated token holder governance vs. "governance-free" algorithmic control 3Key Governance FeaturesDelegated Voting, SubDAOs ("Endgame" strategy), Governance Security Module (GSM) 2Fixed parameters (if "governance-free") 44.4 Tokenomics and Value AccrualThe tokenomics of MKR/SKY and BUT/BKT reflect distinct incentive structures and value accrual mechanisms.MakerDAO (MKR/SKY): The tokenomics of MKR are deeply integrated with DAI's stability. Its utility encompasses governance, where holders direct the protocol's evolution, and a unique fee burning mechanism that creates deflationary pressure by using protocol revenue to buy back and destroy MKR.5 Crucially, MKR also serves as a recapitalization resource, meaning new MKR can be minted (inflationary pressure) to cover bad debt during crises.5 This dynamic supply mechanism directly aligns MKR holders' financial interests with the health and solvency of the DAI system. The recent rebranding to SKY introduces a new phase for its tokenomics, aiming for simplification and broader appeal.19 The primary incentive for MKR holders is the stability and long-term success of the DAI stablecoin.Bucket Protocol (BUT/BKT): The utility of BUT/BKT is primarily centered around enabling the minting of BUCK, facilitating yield generation, and supporting leveraged liquidity within the Sui ecosystem.25 While it also has stated governance rights 3, its fixed total supply of 1 billion BUT 28 contrasts with MKR's dynamic supply. The value accrual for BUT/BKT appears more directly tied to the overall growth, activity, and liquidity within the Sui network. The large allocation to "Ecosystem" and "Airdrop" in its distribution 29 suggests a strategy focused on broad community participation and driving adoption within the Sui network. Long vesting schedules for team and pre-sale tokens also indicate a commitment to the project's long-term health, preventing immediate large-scale sell-offs. This suggests that BUT/BKT holders are primarily incentivized by the overall growth and utility of the broader Sui DeFi ecosystem.4.5 Underlying Blockchain ArchitecturesThe choice of underlying blockchain represents a critical trade-off between maturity and performance, directly influencing the user experience and potential use cases for each protocol.Ethereum (MakerDAO): MakerDAO operates on Ethereum, a highly mature, secure, and decentralized Layer 1 blockchain.21 Ethereum benefits from a vast and established ecosystem, unparalleled network effects, and a proven track record. However, it has historically faced inherent scalability limitations, with relatively low transaction speeds (around 15-30 TPS) and high transaction costs (gas fees) during peak network congestion.21 To overcome these challenges, MakerDAO, like other Ethereum dApps, relies heavily on Layer 2 scaling solutions (e.g., Rollups) that process transactions off-chain to improve throughput and reduce costs.21 Ethereum's ongoing transition to Proof-of-Stake aims to improve efficiency and pave the way for future scalability upgrades. MakerDAO benefits from Ethereum's unparalleled security, decentralization, and network effects, but at the cost of native scalability and transaction efficiency, requiring complex L2 solutions.Sui (Bucket Protocol): Bucket Protocol is built on Sui, a newer, high-performance Layer 1 blockchain.3 Sui's architecture features a novel data model that enables parallel transaction execution, leading to significantly higher transaction speeds (thousands of TPS), instant finality, and inherently lower gas fees compared to traditional blockchains.31 It utilizes the Move programming language, which offers enhanced security and flexibility for smart contract development, and its object-based design is particularly well-suited for NFTs and Web3 gaming.32 Bucket Protocol, by leveraging Sui's cutting-edge architecture, gains significant advantages in speed, cost, and throughput natively. This makes Bucket Protocol potentially more suitable for high-frequency or low-value DeFi interactions, where transaction costs and speed are paramount, without the added complexity of Layer 2 solutions.Table 3: Blockchain Performance Comparison (Ethereum vs. Sui)FeatureEthereum (MakerDAO's Base)Sui (Bucket Protocol's Base)Consensus MechanismProof-of-Stake (post-Merge) 22Proof-of-Stake (PoS) with Byzantine Consistent Broadcast 32Programming LanguageSolidityMove 32Transaction Speed (TPS)~15-30 TPS (L1); higher with L2s 21Thousands of TPS 32Transaction Costs (Gas Fees)Historically high, variable; lower with L2s 21Low, even during high activity 32Transaction FinalityVaries, can be slow on L1; faster with L2sInstant (within seconds) 32Key Architectural FeaturesLayer 2 scaling solutions (Rollups, Plasma, Validiums), Sharding roadmap 21Parallel transaction execution, Object-based data model, Resource-oriented Move language 324.6 Market Position and Ecosystem IntegrationThe market positions of MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol reflect their respective maturities and strategic advantages within their native blockchain ecosystems.MakerDAO: Holds a dominant and well-established position as a "blue-chip" DeFi protocol on Ethereum. It boasts a substantial Total Value Locked (TVL) ranging from $2.858 billion 23 to $5.18 billion 6 (TVL figures are dynamic). DAI is deeply integrated as a foundational asset across a vast array of Ethereum-based DeFi applications, including major lending platforms and decentralized exchanges.2 Its long history and proven resilience during various market conditions contribute to its strong market presence and deep network effects. MakerDAO's market position reflects its maturity and deep network effects within the established Ethereum ecosystem, a testament to sustained relevance.Bucket Protocol: While newer, it has rapidly ascended to a leading position within the emerging Sui ecosystem. It is identified as the "leading CDP protocol" on Sui with a TVL of $110.85 million.33 Within just one month of its launch, it became a "top 10 DeFi application" on the Sui blockchain, managing over $110 million in TVL.25 Its market presence is strong within its native chain, focusing on boosting Sui's overall liquidity. Bucket Protocol's rapid growth and leading position within the nascent Sui ecosystem indicate strong early adoption and a strategic advantage in a less competitive, high-growth environment.Table 4: Market Presence & Adoption MetricsFeatureMakerDAOBucket ProtocolTotal Value Locked (TVL)$2.858B - $5.18B 6$110.85M 33Native Blockchain EcosystemEthereumSuiGovernance Token Market Cap~$1.155B (MKR) 23~$6.9M (BUT/BKT) 30Stablecoin Market Cap~$5B (DAI) 11~$72.42M (BUCK) 34Key Ecosystem Integration/RankingsFoundational asset for major DeFi dApps (Aave, Compound, Uniswap) 1Leading CDP protocol on Sui; Top 10 DeFi application on Sui within one month of launch 254.7 Risk Profiles and ResilienceThe risk profiles and resilience strategies of MakerDAO and Bucket Protocol reflect their distinct design choices and stages of development.MakerDAO:
Jun 11, 2025Elixer Hub
Elixir node at Digital Ocean– Elixir Dashboard
Apr 1, 2025
HackMD