At a glance
Radiant Capital ↗ and MarginFi (mrgn) ↗ are two lending protocols launched in 2022, but they diverge sharply on architecture and risk. Radiant is a cross-chain money market built on Aave v3 and LayerZero, serving Ethereum, Arbitrum, and BNB Chain. It holds just under $0.01B in TVL and runs in safe mode after a major exploit in October 2024. MarginFi is a Solana-native money market with global cross-collateral pools and $0.04B TVL—eight times Radiant’s—and no reported exploits. If you need multichain access, Radiant offers it at elevated risk; if you’re on Solana, MarginFi provides scale and a cleaner record.
Key differences
Chain support. Radiant operates on three EVM chains (Arbitrum, BNB, Ethereum) via LayerZero bridging. MarginFi is confined to Solana. Multi-chain reach is Radiant’s differentiator, but its low TVL (under $0.01B) means thin liquidity, especially after its exploit. MarginFi’s single-chain focus concentrates $0.04B in Solana liquidity, making it a dominant venue there.
Liquidity and TVL. MarginFi outpaces Radiant by about $0.03B. That gap directly impacts borrowing costs and liquidation risk: deeper pools absorb large positions without sharp rate swings. Radiant’s TVL is concentrated in safe mode, limiting the assets available for supply and borrow.
Design and risk models. Radiant uses Aave v3’s cross-chain liquidity and isolation modes, while MarginFi employs its v2 protocol with global cross-collateral pools and risk-tiered assets. The latter’s design allows more capital-efficient borrowing across multiple collaterals, whereas Radiant’s safe-mode restrictions likely curtail capital efficiency post-exploit.
Audits. Radiant was audited by Peckshield, Zokyo, and BlockSec. MarginFi was audited by Ottersec and Halborn. Radiant had three audits; MarginFi had two. Audit quality alone does not separate them; the stark difference is Radiant’s live exploit history.
Security and track record
Radiant’s security profile is marred by an October 2024 exploit that forced the DAO to activate safe mode and work on remediation. The protocol’s audits (Peckshield, Zokyo, BlockSec) did not prevent the incident. Currently, trading and borrowing are restricted, and the DAO’s remediation plan remains in progress. MarginFi has no recorded exploits and passed audits from Ottersec and Halborn. While audits are not guarantees, MarginFi’s lack of adversarial history makes it the more battle-tested option given the data. Radiant’s safe-mode operation adds an unknown remediation timeline and governance risk.
Fees and costs
Specific fee structures were not disclosed in our data for either protocol. Typically, money markets charge a spread between borrow and supply APYs, with a reserve factor allocated to the treasury. For current supply and borrow rates, check each protocol’s official app. Radiant’s safe-mode status may alter standard fee parameters; verify directly before depositing.
Which should you choose
Pick Radiant Capital if:
- You require exposure across Arbitrum, BNB, and Ethereum in one place.
- You are comfortable with the risk of a protocol operating in safe mode and accept that remediation is ongoing.
- You can tolerate low TVL (under $0.01B) and the resulting liquidity constraints.
Pick MarginFi if:
- You operate primarily on Solana and want the deepest liquidity ($0.04B TVL).
- You value a clean security record with no past exploits.
- You benefit from risk-tiered assets and global cross-collateral pools for capital efficiency.
Verdict
The decision is context-dependent. MarginFi is the stronger protocol for Solana users demanding liquidity and a spotless security history. Radiant retains a niche for cross-chain lending, but its October 2024 exploit, safe-mode status, and under $0.01B TVL make it a higher-risk play. Choose based on your chain preference and how much you weigh the exploit timeline.