1. Kreditnehmer: Gesundheitsfaktor und Liquidationspreis
2. Bridge-Asset-Kreditgeber: isolierte Forderungsausfälle
Wenn die Kreditnehmer dieses Silos ausfallen, wird der Verlust nur von den Kreditgebern getragen, die den Überbrückungswert bereitgestellt haben in dasselbe Silo — not by depositors in other, unrelated silos. Your share of the loss is proportional to your share of that silo's bridge-asset liquidity.
Why isolated markets change the math
A pooled money market (classic Aave V2 / Compound style) lets many collateral types borrow from one shared liquidity pool per asset, so a bad-debt event anywhere in that pool is a risk every lender of that asset carries, however small their exposure to the specific collateral that failed. Silo Finance instead spins up one isolated market per collateral asset, each paired only against a bridge asset: health factor = (collateral value × liquidation threshold) / debt, liquidating below 1, exactly like other money markets — but the bridge-asset liquidity backing that debt sits in its own silo. Formula for lender exposure: your loss = bad debt × (your deposit / total silo bridge deposits). Depositing bridge assets into a silo backing a volatile long-tail token concentrates your risk in that one asset instead of spreading it thin across a whole pool — higher LTV blue-chip silos generally carry a smaller bad-debt tail than long-tail token silos with thinner liquidity. Compare against Aave E-Modus for a pooled protocol's correlated-asset approach, or the Rechner für Gesundheitsfaktoren for the generic single-asset case.
How Silo's isolated architecture actually works
Silo Finance's core design principle is that every ERC-20 gets its own lending market instead of joining one large shared pool. Each "silo" pairs exactly one collateral asset against a common bridge asset — typically a stablecoin or wrapped ETH — so borrowers deposit the collateral token and borrow the bridge asset, while a separate group of lenders supplies the bridge-asset liquidity that gets borrowed against. Because the pairing is fixed and isolated, listing a brand-new, thinly-traded token as collateral cannot introduce contagion risk into unrelated markets the way it could in a pooled protocol where every asset shares the same risk parameters and liquidity backstop.
This isolation lets Silo's risk parameters be set aggressively per market instead of conservatively across the board: a blue-chip liquid-staking-token silo can run a high loan-to-value close to 80-85% because its collateral is deep and correlated to ETH, while a long-tail token silo is capped much lower — often 45-60% — because a thin order book means a liquidation cascade moves the price further before it can be absorbed. The tradeoff shows up on the lender side: supplying the bridge asset into a risky silo concentrates you in that one collateral's tail risk, since Silo's whole point is that a bad-debt event stays contained to the silo where it occurred rather than socializing across every bridge-asset lender on the protocol.
Practically, this means the two questions a Silo user needs answered are structurally different from a pooled protocol like Aave: as a borrower, "how far can this specific collateral drop before I'm liquidated" (health factor and liquidation price, same math as any money market); and as a lender, "how exposed am I to this one silo's collateral failing" (proportional bad-debt share, not a protocol-wide reserve). This calculator answers both.