Alpaca Finance 2.0 vs Native Credit Pool: Risk & Value Comparison
Alpaca Finance 2.0
Native Credit Pool
Sector
Lending
Lending
Risk Score
47/100
47/100
Risk Grade
C
C
Value Score
15/100
30/100
Value Grade
D-
D+
TVL
$13M
$41M
FDV
$76,187
—
Mechanisms
7
6
Interactions
5
4
Quadrant
Weak
Weak
Risk Dimension Comparison
Mechanism Novelty/ 15
Alpaca Finance 2.0
3
Native Credit Pool
8
Interaction Severity/ 20
Alpaca Finance 2.0
7
Native Credit Pool
10
Oracle Surface/ 10
Alpaca Finance 2.0
5
Native Credit Pool
4
Documentation Quality/ 10
Alpaca Finance 2.0
4
Native Credit Pool
4
Track Record/ 15
Alpaca Finance 2.0
15
Native Credit Pool
8
Scale Exposure/ 10
Alpaca Finance 2.0
3
Native Credit Pool
3
Regulatory Risk/ 10
Alpaca Finance 2.0
3
Native Credit Pool
5
Protocol Vitality/ 10
Alpaca Finance 2.0
7
Native Credit Pool
5
Value Dimension Comparison
Fee Capture/ 25
Alpaca Finance 2.0
5
Native Credit Pool
8
Token Distribution/ 25
Alpaca Finance 2.0
5
Native Credit Pool
6
Emission Sustainability/ 25
Alpaca Finance 2.0
2
Native Credit Pool
8
Competitive Moat/ 25
Alpaca Finance 2.0
3
Native Credit Pool
8
Verdict
Both protocols have identical risk scores (47/100), making them equally risky.
Native Credit Pool has stronger value accrual (D+, 30/100) compared to D- (15/100).
Alpaca Finance 2.0
Native Credit Pool