1. Mutuário: fator de saúde e preço de liquidação
2. Credor de ativos-ponte: exposição isolada a dívidas incobráveis
Se os mutuários deste silo entrarem em inadimplência, a perda será absorvida apenas pelos credores que forneceram o ativo-ponte naquele mesmo 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.
Por que os mercados isolados mudam a matemática
Um mercado monetário agrupado (estilo clássico Aave V2 / Composto) permite que muitos tipos de garantias tomem empréstimos de um pool de liquidez compartilhada por ativo, portanto, um evento de inadimplência em qualquer lugar desse pool é um risco que todo credor desse ativo carrega, por menor que seja sua exposição à garantia específica que falhou. Em vez disso, a Silo Finance cria um mercado isolado por ativo colateral, cada um emparelhado apenas com um ativo ponte: health factor = (collateral value × liquidation threshold) / debt, liquidando abaixo de 1, exactamente como outros mercados monetários – mas a liquidez do activo-ponte que apoia essa dívida fica no seu próprio silo. Fórmula para exposição do credor: 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 Modo Aave E para a abordagem de ativos correlacionados de um protocolo agrupado, ou o calculadora do fator de saúde 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.