Why
The identity is short enough to hold in your head, which is what makes it useful. Outside money X, collateral ratio c. Deposit X, borrow cX against it, redeposit, repeat. Total deposits converge to X/(1−c) and total borrows to cX/(1−c). Subtract: net TVL = X. Net TVL is exactly the external capital. Everything above it is the same money wearing more coats.
The consequence that matters is that gross divided by net is a leverage multiple, and it is published without being labelled. A market showing deposits of $164.5M against borrows of $122.5M has $42M actually in it and a multiple of 3.9×. Nothing is hidden — both numbers are on the page — but only the larger one gets quoted, and it gets quoted under a word, TVL, that most readers hear as money present.
A second consequence explains a pattern that otherwise looks strange: fee revenue moves superlinearly with the multiple. Fees accrue on total borrows, which scale as c/(1−c) — so a modest fall in the collateral ratio collapses both together. When borrows fall 87% and fees fall 80% in the same window, that is not two facts. It is one fact, and it says the fees were a leverage gauge rather than a demand gauge.
And the general form is worth stating plainly, because it is not confined to lending: everyone reports gross and calls it net. A chain reports TVL that is partly looped. An exchange reports volume that is partly wash or partly the same collateral re-pledged overnight. A payments network reports throughput that counts both legs of a round trip. The discipline is a single division, and the reason nobody performs it is that the larger number is the one being sold.
The honest limits belong here too. The identity is exact only for single-asset recursion; cross-asset loops double-count and need a per-asset decomposition. And a high multiple is not fraud — leverage is a legitimate product, and a lending market exists precisely to provide it. The claim is narrower and harder to argue with: the multiple should be published, and it never is.
How it works
The identity
| Quantity | Formula | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Total deposits | D = X / (1 − c) | The headline |
| Total borrows | B = cX / (1 − c) | What the incentive pays on |
| Net TVL | D − B = X | The external capital, exactly |
| Recycling multiple | D / (D − B) | The number nobody publishes |
Worked example
| Reported | Value |
|---|---|
| Total deposits | $164.5M |
| Total borrows | $122.5M |
| Net | $42M |
| Implied collateral ratio | c ≈ 0.745 |
| Recycling multiple | 3.9× |
$42M wearing four coats. Note the tell that comes free: when borrows exceed deposits in a headline, the smaller figure is already a net number and the reporting has mixed units.
Why fees move superlinearly
Fees accrue on B, and B/X = c/(1−c):
| c | Multiple D/X | Fee base B/X |
|---|---|---|
| 0.50 | 2.0× | 1.0 |
| 0.70 | 3.3× | 2.3 |
| 0.745 | 3.9× | 2.9 |
| 0.80 | 5.0× | 4.0 |
A small move in c swings the fee base hard in both directions — which is why an incentive programme ending can take fees down 80% without a single user leaving.
The general form
| Domain | Gross number reported | What net would be |
|---|---|---|
| Lending | TVL | Deposits − borrows |
| Chains | TVL | Same, summed across markets |
| Exchanges | Volume | Net of wash and of re-pledged collateral |
| Repo | Daily turnover | The same collateral re-counted every night |
| Payments | Throughput | One leg, not both |
Everyone reports gross and calls it net. The division is the whole method.
Limits, stated up front
- Exact only for single-asset recursion. Cross-asset loops need decomposition or they double-count.
- A high multiple is not fraud. Leverage is the product. The objection is to the label, not the leverage.
- The multiple is a snapshot; it moves with c, which moves with price.
Where it lands in Jayverse
- DeFi: compute net TVL = deposits − borrows before quoting any number for the liquid-staking study. If the design ever pays incentives on both a deposit and a re-stake or borrow leg, the same recursion applies, and the PoC-stage build is the cheap place to add the subtraction before it becomes marketing.
- gitboard: publish the recycling multiple next to TVL for every Jayverse lending or staking product. Gross deposits divided by net is one division and it should sit on the dashboard alongside the headline number, not be left for someone to reconstruct later.
- Verex: decide whether reported volume double-counts a trade's two legs before quoting it. The general form in this page lists exchange volume as a gross number that hides wash and re-pledged collateral; Verex's own volume metric needs the same net check the DeFi side gets.
- Auditor: add "gross divided by net, published" as a standing check on any Jayverse number that can recycle. TVL, volume and throughput are exactly the shapes this page names, and the Auditor row is the place that should refuse to let a headline stand without the net figure next to it.
Key expressions
| Expression | 뜻 · 쓰이는 자리 |
|---|---|
| wearing more coats | 같은 돈이 겹겹이 포장된 것을 빗댄 표현 · "the same money wearing more coats" |
| published without being labelled | 정체를 안 밝힌 채 그대로 공개되다 · "it is published without being labelled" |
| the tell | 숨은 사실을 드러내는 단서 · "Note the tell that comes free" |
| double-count | 같은 것을 두 번 세다 · "cross-asset loops double-count" |
| mixed units | 단위가 서로 뒤섞이다 · "the reporting has mixed units" |
| wash (trading) | 실질 거래 없이 만든 가짜 거래량 · "partly wash or partly the same collateral" |
| re-pledged | (같은 담보를) 다시 맡기다 · "re-pledged collateral overnight" |
| move superlinearly | 증가율이 선형보다 가파르게 움직이다 · "fee revenue moves superlinearly with the multiple" |
| both legs | 거래의 양쪽 다리(양방향) · "counts both legs of a round trip" |
| TVL | 총예치자산(Total Value Locked) · 프로토콜에 예치된 자산의 총액, 이 카드가 gross·net을 구분해 비판하는 대상 지표. "the protocol's own reporting calls the gross number TVL" |