I just found out that ZeroLend closed after three years in operation, and honestly, I’m not very surprised. The protocol had serious issues with the chains it operated on; many were practically inactive, and that was eroding liquidity.

What caught my attention the most was that they mention hacks as a key factor in the decision. It seems that security breaches on different chains ended up being the breaking point. This isn’t the first time we’ve seen this in DeFi, where protocols expand to many chains without truly being prepared to maintain security across all of them.

The truth is, ZeroLend tried to grow too quickly on chains that didn’t have enough traction. When blockchain networks don’t generate real volume, protocols become vulnerable. Between user inactivity and security issues, it was only a matter of time.

Do you think protocols should focus on fewer chains but with more robustness? Because expanding everywhere without consolidating doesn’t seem to be working.