🥊Competition

Robox.Fi is different from its competitors as it operates on a completely on-chain system. This means that all user interactions such as purchases and sales are conducted through a smart contract.

Features	Project A	Project B	Robox
Sell your position without having to repay an NFT	-	Yes	Yes
Pro-rate interest if NFT is repaid early	-	-	Yes
Marketplaces	Hadeswap Tensor	Magic Eden	Hadeswap, Tensor, Hyperspace, Magic Eden (soon)
Buy NFTs directly from our platform	Yes	-	Yes
In case of liquidation, NFT is sold and profits are redistributed between the user and the platform	-	-	Yes
NFT is kept frozen in your wallet until you repay the loan	Yes	-	Yes

Blend by Blur comparison

Feature	Robox.Fi	Blend (Blur)
Price Discovery	LTV and interest rates are determined by the Robox team. Market conditions and demand are factored into this calculation.	Subjective evaluation by individual lenders
Liquidity	Aggregated liquidity for easier loan matching	Scattered liquidity in P2P model
Customization	More options for customizing positions	Limited options
Risk Exposure	Risk spread across multiple lenders, reducing individual exposure	Lender bears risk for specific loans
Liquidation Process	Liquidation based on floor price, minimizing risks	Refinancing auctions can be triggered by lenders
Collateral	Escrow-less system, NFTs stay in user wallets	Escrow system, NFTs held until repaid
Blockchain	Built on Solana for speed, low fees, and scalability	Ethereum-based, potentially slower and costlier

TL;DR: Twitter Thread

Robox is considered a better option for NFT lending by some due to its unified pool approach, risk diversification, and utilization of the Solana blockchain. Here's a detailed analysis with examples of why Robox might be a better choice:

Price Discovery

In Robox, users deposit their SOL into a unified pool, providing higher diversification for lenders.

On the other hand, Blend relies on individual lenders to subjectively evaluate NFTs, which can lead to high loan-to-value ratios and interest rates. This may result in riskier lending practices, as lenders might not have a comprehensive understanding of the NFT's value.

Liquidity

Robox's aggregated liquidaity pool makes the borrowing and lending experience smoother. Users can always borrow SOL if there is enough unused liquidity in the pool. On the other hand lenders have a more passive yielding approach since they just deposit liquidity and earn APY.

In contrast, Blend's P2P model scatters liquidity, which may make it harder for borrowers and lenders to find suitable matches, increasing inefficiencies in the lending process.

Customization

Robox enables users to customize their positions with more options, offering a more tailored lending experience. For example, users can choose different leverage levels or lending durations based on their risk appetite and investment strategy.

Blend, however, offers limited options for customization based on the lenders offerings, which might not suit all users' needs or preferences.

Risk Exposure

In Robox, risk is spread across multiple lenders in the unified pool, reducing individual exposure. For example, if a lender stakes funds in the pool, they share the risk of NFT price fluctuations with other lenders in the pool, minimizing the impact on their investment.

In Blend, lenders risk holding illiquid NFTs going to zero if no more lenders back a position and the NFT isn't sold in the auction. This increases the risk for individual lenders, as they bear the full brunt of any potential losses.

Liquidation Process

Robox's liquidation process occurs only if the floor price plummets, minimizing risks for lenders and the platform. Solid order books on listed collections decrease the probability of cascade liquidations. For instance, if a user has a loan against their NFT, the liquidation would only occur if the floor price drops significantly, reducing the chances of unnecessary liquidations.

Blend, however, allows lenders to trigger refinancing auctions at any time, which may put borrowers at a higher risk of liquidation.

Collateral Robox uses an escrow-less system where NFTs remain in the user's wallet, providing access to utilities and security. Users can continue to enjoy their NFTs' utilities (discord, events, airdrops) while still using them as collateral.

In contrast, Blend uses an escrow system that holds the NFTs until they are repaid, which may limit users' ability to utilize their NFTs during the loan period.

Blockchain

Robox is built on Solana, a high-performance blockchain known for its speed, low fees, and scalability. This makes Robox more efficient and cost-effective for users. For example, users can expect faster loan approval times and lower transaction fees compared to Ethereum-based platforms.

Blend, however, is built on Ethereum, which may have slower transactions and higher fees, potentially making the lending process less efficient and costlier for users. Overall, Robox's features create a more user-friendly experience and cater to the needs of both lenders and borrowers, potentially making it a better choice for NFT lending in the eyes of many users.