Moderate risk — novel self-repaying veNFT loan mechanism creates dependency on external reward flows, balanced by non-liquidating design that protects borrowers from forced losses.
Top Risks
1
Self-repaying loans depend on the continuous flow of veNFT voting rewards from Aerodrome/Velodrome. If these platforms reduce rewards or change their emission schedules, loan repayment timelines extend or stall, leaving borrowers with longer-than-expected debt exposure.
2
veNFT collateral is inherently illiquid — these are non-fungible, vote-locked tokens that cannot be easily liquidated at fair value if a borrower defaults or the underlying DEX reward structure changes.
3
Governance via multisig creates centralization risk. Protocol upgrades, fee changes, and operational decisions are controlled by a small group of signers rather than token-weighted governance.
4
The USDC lending vault underwrites all loans. If multiple large veNFT holders borrow simultaneously and reward yields decline, the vault could face a liquidity crunch where depositors cannot withdraw.
Risk Breakdown
Frequently Asked Questions
Is 40 Acres safe to use?
40 Acres receives a B- risk grade (34/100) from Hindenrank, where lower scores indicate lower risk. Moderate risk — novel self-repaying veNFT loan mechanism creates dependency on external reward flows, balanced by non-liquidating design that protects borrowers from forced losses. 40 Acres is a DeFi lending protocol that enables veNFT holders from Aerodrome and Velodrome to take self-repaying, non-liquidating loans in USDC. Voting rewards from the locked veNFT positions automatically repay the loan over time, while a USDC lending vault earns yield from origination fees and a share of voting rewards. With approximately $22M TVL and a novel lending mechanism adapted from Alchemix's self-repaying model, its B- risk grade reflects the dependency on Aerodrome/Velodrome reward flows and the inherent illiquidity of veNFT collateral, balanced by the non-liquidating design that protects borrowers.
What are the main risks of using 40 Acres?
The key risks identified for 40 Acres are: (1) Self-repaying loans depend entirely on voting rewards from Aerodrome and Velodrome. If these platforms reduce their reward emissions or decline in activity, loan repayment timelines could extend significantly, trapping lender capital in slow-performing loans. (2) veNFT collateral is inherently illiquid. Unlike standard crypto collateral that can be sold on DEXes, vote-locked NFT positions are non-fungible and cannot be easily liquidated at fair value, creating recovery risk if borrowers effectively default. (3) All loans are underwritten by a single USDC lending vault. If many large veNFT holders borrow simultaneously and rewards decline, the vault could face a liquidity crunch where depositors cannot withdraw their USDC. (4) Protocol governance operates via multisig rather than decentralized token voting. A small group of signers controls protocol parameters, fee structures, and operational decisions.
What is 40 Acres's risk score breakdown?
40 Acres scores 34/100 across eight risk dimensions: Mechanism Novelty: 3/15, Interaction Severity: 6/20, Oracle Surface: 2/10, Documentation Gaps: 4/10, Track Record: 6/15, Scale Exposure: 3/10, Regulatory Risk: 5/10, Vitality Risk: 5/10. The highest risk area is Regulatory Risk at 5/10.
How does 40 Acres compare to other Lending protocols?
Among 90 rated Lending protocols on Hindenrank, 40 Acres ranks #39 by safety (lowest risk score = safest). Its 34/100 risk score and B- grade place it in the middle tier of Lending protocols.
Has 40 Acres ever been hacked or exploited?
40 Acres scores 6/15 on the Track Record risk dimension, indicating some history of security incidents or exploits. Higher scores reflect more severe or frequent incidents. Review the full risk report for details.