Aave will abandon multi-chain operations and shut down deployments on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium

DeFi lending giant Aave is rethinking its aggressive multi-chain expansion strategy. The Aave Chan Initiative (ACI) has proposed to terminate deployments on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium, as these chains generate annual revenues that are mere fractions and cannot cover operational costs. The former “multi-chain maximalists” are now facing reality: the era of efficiency-first has arrived.

(Previous context: In-depth explanation of the AAVE V4 upgrade: Reshaping lending with modularity—can the old token see a new spring?) (Background supplement: The survival crisis of Ethereum Layer2: From valuation bubbles to three possible paths)

Decentralized lending leader Aave is rethinking its aggressive multi-chain expansion strategy. The Aave Chan Initiative (ACI) has proposed to terminate deployments on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium. The proposal, initiated by the Aave community, represents a reality check for crypto protocols: in the past, deploying to as many chains as possible signaled ecosystem expansion and was a sign of project ambition.

But now, Aave is letting the cold, hard numbers speak: if a chain cannot bring in sufficient revenue for the protocol, maintaining deployment becomes a waste of capital. This is not just a shift in Aave’s decision-making, but a signal for the entire DeFi ecosystem.

The case of Metis is the most striking. This Layer 2, co-founded by Vitalik Buterin’s mother Natalia Ameline, brought in only $3,000 in annual revenue for Aave. In contrast, Aave’s annual revenue on the mainnet is as high as $142 million—a chasm between the two. When the engineering resources required to maintain a chain’s deployment far exceed the revenue generated, persisting becomes an irresponsible waste.

The Harsh Truth Revealed by Data

The most shocking aspect of ACI’s proposal is not the decision to terminate, but the numbers behind it. Aave operates on 18 chains, but most run at a loss. Metis generates only $3,000 in annual revenue, Soneium does slightly better at $50,000. Compared to Aave’s $142 million annual revenue on Ethereum mainnet, these figures are a drop in the bucket.

To make matters worse, these low-revenue chains require extra engineering resources. Every new asset listing or protocol upgrade demands time from Aave’s technical team for adaptation and testing. With current human resources stretched thin, the marginal benefit of these costs approaches zero. ACI clearly states, “With current service providers already at capacity and revenues minimal, these tasks can no longer be carried out.”

Metis annual revenue: $3,000 (co-founded by Vitalik’s mother Natalia Ameline) Soneium annual revenue: $50,000 (Sony-backed Layer 2) Ethereum mainnet annual revenue: $142,000,000 (majority of Aave’s total income) Base annual revenue: $4,700,000 (TVL only $1.8M) Future deployment threshold: minimum annual revenue requirement of $2,000,000

From Multi-Chain Maximalism to Selective Precision

Aave was once a champion of aggressive multi-chain deployment. In its early days, no matter the conditions on a new chain, Aave rushed to deploy. There’s a well-known case: zkSync, to incentivize Aave’s deployment, even granted Aave the largest share of the entire ZK token airdrop before Aave had gone live on the chain. That lenient “as long as you come, anything can be negotiated” attitude is now a thing of the past.

This proposal marks a fundamental shift in DeFi protocol thinking. No longer “Which chains should we be on?” but “Which chains should we be on and still be profitable?” This subtle but important difference reflects the crypto market’s transition from wild expansion to rational operation. Aave’s decision will set a precedent for other protocols: survival and profitability should take priority over expansion and ambition.

Aave maintains several V3 instances, each carrying operational costs and risks. We believe the returns from these instances are insufficient to offset their costs and risks.

Meanwhile, ACI has also proposed setting a “stablecoin reserve factor” for other low-revenue but strategically valuable chains (such as Polygon, Gnosis, BNB Chain, Optimism). This is a compromise. Even if these chains do not meet the $2 million annual revenue threshold, Aave is willing to maintain deployments through special mechanisms (like locking stablecoin assets). This shows that Aave is not simply cutting everything, but making nuanced trade-offs.

Community Voices: Concerns About Centralization

Not all Aave governance participants support this proposal. Opposition mainly comes from concerns about excessive centralization. Token holder Nano pointed out that if the proposal passes, Aave will only operate on a handful of top chains (Ethereum, Base, Avalanche, Arbitrum), which would “significantly reduce Aave’s presence in the ecosystem and greatly shrink its potential user base.”

This concern is not baseless. When a protocol’s revenue and influence are concentrated on a few chains, any risks faced by those chains (technical failures, regulatory changes, declining adoption) directly threaten the protocol’s own security. However, ACI’s response is also reasonable: sacrificing overall efficiency to support deployments that cannot sustain themselves may undermine Aave’s competitiveness.

TokenLogic’s Balanced Argument

Aave’s main governance advisor, TokenLogic, takes a more nuanced stance. He supports discontinuing the structurally unviable deployments on zkSync, Metis, and Soneium, but is more cautious regarding other low-revenue chains. He believes chains like Polygon, BNB Chain, and Optimism, despite low revenues, hold “strategic importance.”

ACI founder Marc Zeller also expressed willingness to make exceptions depending on circumstances. He mentioned that although Celo has low revenue, its high user count and low maintenance costs mean it should not be discontinued. This flexible approach shows that Aave’s decision-making is not one-size-fits-all, but based on multi-dimensional evaluation.

Conclusion

This proposal from Aave DAO reflects DeFi protocols completing a mindset upgrade: terminating low-revenue deployments is not an escape, but a focus. By setting a $2 million annual revenue threshold, Aave establishes a new standard for the entire ecosystem: not all expansion is worthwhile—only deployments that bring real value to the protocol and its users should be maintained. If this proposal ultimately passes, it will mark the end of an era—the wild age of unlimited multi-chain maximalism—and the beginning of a new era: precise, efficient, and sustainable multi-chain strategy. It’s not about how many chains you participate in, but that every chain you participate in must be able to prove its own value.

Related reports Aave is about to launch…