Aave faced a withdrawal surge of $8.45 billion during the rsETH crisis, reigniting debates about the risk management capabilities of DeFi

Aave experienced approximately $8.45 billion in fund withdrawals after the KelpDAO's rsETH cross-chain bridge was attacked in April 2026, but the core functions of the protocol did not fail, successfully completing one of the largest liquidity stress tests in DeFi to date. This crisis originated from the attack on KelpDAO's LayerZero cross-chain bridge, resulting in approximately $292 million in rsETH being stolen, raising concerns in the market about the collateral value and solvency of rsETH.

As rsETH is widely used as collateral in protocols like Aave, the risk quickly spread, leading to concentrated withdrawals by users, with some market utilization reaching 100% at one point, causing some users to be unable to withdraw funds immediately. In the face of liquidity tightening, the Aave risk management team initiated emergency freeze and parameter adjustment mechanisms to limit the spread of risk.

Aave founder Stani Kulechov viewed this incident as proof of the maturity of DeFi, believing that the protocol continued to operate as designed under extreme pressure, demonstrating the resilience of an on-chain transparent, rules-driven system. However, several independent analysts pointed out that while Aave avoided a systemic collapse, the event exposed that the DeFi lending system still has concentration risks, liquidity risks, and contagion risks arising from high interconnectivity between protocols. The behavior of large borrowers could have an impact on the overall stability of the system that exceeds model expectations.

Aave currently controls risk through multiple protective measures such as loan-to-value (LTV) limits, liquidation thresholds, supply caps, borrowing limits, Isolation Mode, E-Mode, and governance mechanisms. These mechanisms played a role during this crisis, but observers believe that the governance response speed and risk models still need further optimization to cope with future unknown systemic shocks.

Analysis suggests that this incident indicates that DeFi protocols can withstand large-scale runs without external assistance, but a single stress test cannot fully prove system safety. As the composability between protocols continues to strengthen, an issue with an external asset or cross-chain bridge could still quickly evolve into a liquidity crisis for the entire ecosystem.