Native Credit Pool

Rejected venues wait the longest for re-review; a rejection has to earn another look before the scheduled date.

Native Credit Pool is a single-sided supply pool that lends assets to market makers for on-chain spot trading, deployed on Ethereum, BSC, Arbitrum, and Base. TVL was $31.9M at the 2026-08-14 survey, below the $100M materiality line, and size alone rejects it: one practice advising 100 households moves $1M to $8M into a venue on the same research, and at this size that book becomes the exit crush, whatever the protocol’s quality. A reopened file would start with the borrower side: lending to market-making firms is a credit decision, and the review would need to see how those loans are secured.

Kill criteria: the events that revoke this verdict
• TVL sustained above $100M for 30 days

The research file

Mechanism applicability

Native documentation describes a unified single-sided pool whose assets are borrowed by private market makers to settle spot swaps. Market makers post collateral and receive credit computed from collateral and trading positions, subject to asset-specific factors; quoting can exceed contributed collateral. That establishes pooled credit exposure to market makers and settlement within the below-materiality application. It does not validate collateral, a market maker or a listed asset.

Current observation and control applicability

The DefiLlama protocol API read on 2026-08-15 showed about $27.5M of tracked Native Credit Pool TVL across seven EVM networks, below the shared v1 dossier’s $100M line. Current official documentation still described pool and PMM operation. Native’s documented settings include administrator force-pause, pause, credit-limit, leverage and liquidation-factor fields. Current borrowers, positions, parameters, administrators, audits and incidents remain deferred.

Exit applicability

Supplier assets serve as inventory that market makers borrow and must return with interest; Native itself identifies bad-debt risk if liquidation cannot keep pace with volatility or congestion. Available supplier liquidity therefore depends on outstanding PMM positions, settlement and pool cash, while each chain and asset pool can be much smaller than the aggregate. The current size makes those borrower and exit dependencies material for an advised allocation.

Why the class rule decides

The shared v1 below-materiality dossier controls this application. Reopen only after reproducible surveys show at least $100M of protocol TVL continuously for 30 days and pool, borrower and settlement activity remains observable. Then review each asset and chain pool for PMM identity and concentration, collateral and credit limits, pricing and liquidation, administrator controls, contracts and audits, incidents, bad debt, fees, and observed withdrawals during settlement stress. Threshold passage would start review, not approval.

Sources

The claims above trace to these. Where a number could not be independently verified, the thesis says so.

• Native Docs — Credit Pool mechanism · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: single-sided pool, market-maker borrowing, liquidity tiers, dynamic allocation
• Native Docs — Credit Pool risks · primary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: bad debt, liquidation lag, collateralization, health ratio, smart-contract risk
• DefiLlama — Native Credit Pool survey record · secondary · accessed 2026-08-15
  Supports: current TVL, supported chains, lending category

Inherited controls

The verdict above grades the protocol layer. Every position also inherits the asset it holds and the chain it settles on. The least safe layer sets the position’s grade, and the position table names which one that is.