ZeroLend ends after three years of activity
ZeroLend, a multi-chain decentralized lending protocol, has announced that it is permanently closing its doors. The founder, known as Ryker, explained that sustained operational losses and what he called a deteriorating market environment made the platform unviable. After three years of activity, they decided to put an end to their activity.
I think this is one of those cases where the numbers tell a pretty clear story. At its peak in November 2024, ZeroLend held approximately $359 million in user deposits according to data from DefiLlama. This is by no means a negligible sum. But since then, things have changed radically.
The dramatic decline in assets and income
The current figure stands at around $6.6 million spread across Linea, Ethereum and ZKsync Era, with smaller balances on other networks. That’s a huge drop from the peak. Revenues tell a similar story: Gross revenues reached $3.1 million in 2025, but have fallen to about $355,000 so far this year.
Ryker highlighted several specific pressures behind the closure. Dormant channels at an early stage were mentioned, as well as the discontinuation of Oracle support. Growing security threats and low credit margins have also played a role. It appears to be a combination of factors that made the business model unworkable.
User withdrawal process and impact of tokens
Most markets have been set at a zero percent loan-to-value ratio, and users are advised to withdraw their funds immediately. For assets locked on networks like Manta, Zircuit, and xLayer, the team is planning an upgrade to the timelock smart contract to redistribute the locked funds. It is also mentioned that on-base LBTC providers will receive a partial refund linked to a Linea airdrop allowance.
Unsurprisingly, the ZERO governance token offers no recovery mechanism. It has fallen 34% over the past day and is now trading near zero. It’s difficult for anyone who still holds it.
Broader implications for crypto markets
Diego Martin, CEO of Yellow Capital, offered his perspective on what this closure could mean. He suggested this highlights deeper structural weaknesses in crypto markets. His argument is that fragmented liquidity between exchanges, custodians and blockchains creates price instability and liquidity deficits.
This fragmentation, he says, limits long-term adoption despite increasing institutional capital flows. This is an interesting point: even as more and more money flows into crypto, the infrastructure might not keep pace in a way that supports sustainable businesses.
Looking at ZeroLend’s situation, it appears that they have faced challenges on several fronts. Declining assets under management, collapsing revenues and operational pressures have all added up. The multi-chain approach which might have initially appeared to be a strength may have become a liability to the extent that some of these chains have not developed as expected.
It should be noted that this is not just a failure of one protocol. These types of shutdowns can have ripple effects across the entire ecosystem. Users lose confidence, developers might become more cautious, and investors might pull out. But at the same time, perhaps this is just part of the natural evolution of the space: weaker projects don’t survive and resources are reallocated to stronger ones.
What happens next will be interesting to watch. The team’s plan for handling stranded assets seems reasonable, but execution will be important. And the broader discussion about market structure started by Diego Martin probably deserves more attention.
