CoinClear

Clearpool

5.8/10

Permissionless institutional lending with dynamic rate pricing and growing RWA capabilities.

Updated: February 16, 2026AI Model: claude-4-opusVersion 1

Overview

Clearpool offers a permissionless marketplace for unsecured institutional borrowing. Unlike Maple's delegate-managed pools, Clearpool uses single-borrower pools where each institution creates its own pool and the market dynamically prices interest rates based on utilization.

This design creates transparent, market-driven credit pricing on-chain — no intermediary delegates, no subjective credit committees. The rate reflects real-time supply and demand for each borrower's credit.

The protocol has evolved beyond pure DeFi lending into broader RWA territory, including the launch of Ozean (a purpose-built RWA chain) and T-Bill-backed yield products. This reflects the convergence of institutional DeFi lending and real-world asset tokenization.

Technology

Clearpool's core innovation is the dynamic interest rate curve for single-borrower pools:

  • As utilization increases (more capital borrowed relative to pool size), rates rise
  • Each pool is an isolated contract, limiting contagion between borrowers
  • No delegate intermediary — the market sets rates directly
  • Deployed on Ethereum, Polygon, and other chains

This is more transparent than delegate-based models because rates reflect real supply-demand dynamics. Smart contracts are audited by multiple firms.

The Ozean chain represents Clearpool's infrastructure play:

  • Purpose-built chain for RWA activity
  • Moves Clearpool from lending protocol to ecosystem provider
  • Ambitious expansion carrying significant execution risk
  • Aims to attract RWA issuance beyond just Clearpool's lending products

Asset Quality

Clearpool pools contain unsecured institutional credit — inherently riskier than Treasury-backed products. Borrowers include market makers, trading firms, and fintech companies.

The permissionless model means any whitelisted institution can create a pool, with the market determining whether to fund it. This creates a natural filtering mechanism: bad borrowers attract no capital.

Key considerations:

  • Credit scoring via Credora integration provides risk data to lenders
  • T-Bill products improve asset quality for that specific product line
  • Core lending business carries meaningful credit risk
  • No major defaults have occurred (positive)
  • Shorter history means less stress-testing than Maple during FTX
  • Ultimate lending decisions rest with individual lenders, not delegates

Compliance

Clearpool requires borrower KYC verification before pool creation. The protocol has engaged with regulatory frameworks in multiple jurisdictions.

Compliance posture:

  • KYC for all borrowers
  • Ozean chain built with compliance infrastructure
  • Regulatory engagement across jurisdictions
  • Permissionless lending side operates in regulatory gray area
  • Behind dedicated compliance-first protocols like Ondo
  • Improving but still early in regulatory maturity

The permissionless nature creates tension with compliance — a fully open lending market is philosophically appealing but regulatorily challenging.

Adoption

TVL and active loan volume are modest compared to leaders. The protocol has attracted institutional borrowers but hasn't achieved the scale of Maple or the TVL of Ondo.

Challenges:

  • Permissionless model needs critical mass on both sides (borrowers and lenders)
  • Per-chain TVL is smaller than concentrated competitors
  • Ozean chain could be a catalyst if it attracts RWA issuance
  • Current traction is real but early-stage

The protocol occupies a genuine niche — permissionless institutional lending — but needs to prove it can scale beyond current levels.

Tokenomics

CPOOL provides governance, staking, and access to premium features. Standard DeFi governance tokenomics:

  • Staking rewards and protocol fee sharing
  • Modest market cap and liquidity
  • Potential additional utility if CPOOL becomes Ozean's native token
  • Current value accrual limited by protocol scale

The Ozean transition could strengthen tokenomics if the chain gains traction, but this is forward-looking.

Risk Factors

  • Credit risk: Unsecured lending is inherently risky, especially during market stress.
  • Scale: Smaller TVL means less diversification and potentially fragile pool dynamics.
  • Competition: Maple, Morpho, Aave all compete for institutional lending share.
  • Ozean execution: Building a new chain is resource-intensive with significant risk.
  • Market dependency: Institutional borrowing demand is cyclical and crypto-correlated.
  • Liquidity: Smaller pools may have insufficient liquidity during stress periods.

Conclusion

Clearpool offers a clean, transparent approach to institutional lending with dynamic rates and no delegate intermediary. The permissionless design is appealing, and the Ozean expansion shows ambition. However, smaller scale, limited adoption, and inherent unsecured lending risks keep scores moderate. A solid protocol that needs to prove it can scale.

Sources