Mendifinance
Mendifinance separated lending interest from MENDI staking rewards before its sunset
Mendifinance paid suppliers interest funded by borrowers, while MENDI stakers received distributions of protocol revenue. Lending committed a supported asset to a money market; staking committed MENDI to a separate reward arrangement. The protocol operated on Linea and has since been sunset, so these differences explain historical positions rather than active opportunities for new deposits.
ยท last updated
The confusing overlap was MENDI: it supported incentives for lending and borrowing as well as the staking arrangement. Seeing that token in a reward balance therefore did not, by itself, identify which activity had produced the reward.
Did supplying assets also make someone a MENDI staker?
Supplying assets funded a lending market, while staking MENDI created a position in the protocol's separate revenue-sharing arrangement. A supplier committed an asset that borrowers could access against collateral. The staker committed the protocol token. Additional MENDI incentives could accompany lending or borrowing, so a token reward alone did not establish a staking position. The committed asset and the activity that earned the reward identified the relationship.
Borrower interest within the lending market
A supplier's interest came from borrowers who used the lending market and paid interest on their debt. The November 2023 model included markets for USDC, USDT and DAI alongside Ethereum-related assets and wrapped BTC. Those assets were lending-market inputs. Their inclusion did not make every deposited asset eligible for the separate MENDI staking arrangement.
Borrowing required collateral worth more than the loan. Collateral value and the borrow limit constrained the debt, and exceeding that limit exposed a position to liquidation. Supplying and borrowing therefore had different accounting consequences. Borrower interest generated a return for suppliers and a cost for borrowers. A supply balance used as collateral also supported a debt relationship that a staking reward figure did not describe.
MENDI incentives added another component to lending and borrowing activity. They encouraged participation and liquidity, while borrower interest funded the lending return. A combined percentage needed a breakdown to show each component's funding source and payout asset.
Protocol revenue within the staking model
Staking linked MENDI to distributions funded by revenue that the protocol generated. The November 2023 staking model allocated 100% of protocol revenue to MENDI stakers.
That percentage applied to protocol revenue, rather than to each staker's original token balance. It supplied no fixed annual return by itself. The amount available for distribution and the capital committed to staking were different quantities.
Protocol revenue also had a token-liquidity component in the early Velocore arrangement. In November 2023, 20% of emissions funded incentives for veLVC holders to vote for the MENDI/USDC pair. Yield from that arrangement fed the revenue distributed to stakers.
The early arrangement also described LVC rewards for MENDI stakers. Using those rewards to obtain veLVC let participants vote for the same liquidity pair. Its token flows were distinct from interest earned on assets supplied to the lending markets.
Those Velocore terms belonged to the early model. They did not establish a permanent LVC reward denomination or an unchanged voting arrangement after retirement. The period mattered when comparing returns, because the retained staking interface presented a different set of payout labels.
Reward assets differed across staking arrangements
A reward token identified what a distribution paid, while its origin explained whether that distribution belonged to lending or staking. The November 2023 staking model described receiving protocol revenue in USDC or MENDI. The retained staking interface presented MENDI and oLYNX together under sMendi rewards. Reward denomination therefore needed the context of the staking arrangement and its period.
The labels for the staking balance and its rewards had separate jobs. MENDI named the token committed to staking. sMendi appeared as the staked balance, while the reward area identified distribution tokens.
Distinguish a USDC supply balance from a MENDI stake
A historical USDC supply balance and a MENDI stake committed different assets to different earning mechanisms. The supply balance belonged to a lending market; the stake participated in protocol revenue sharing. Comparing those positions required keeping the principal asset separate from the asset that paid a reward.
- Identify the committed asset: supplied USDC in the lending case, staked MENDI in the staking case.
- Separate borrower-funded interest from revenue distributed to MENDI stakers.
- Treat MENDI lending incentives as an additional reward component, separate from the supplied principal.
- Include collateral requirements and interest owed when the position also involved borrowing.
- Keep reward assets and rate labels within their applicable historical arrangement.
A USDC staking payout left MENDI as the committed staking asset. A USDC lending balance remained supplied capital even when additional incentives paid MENDI. The payout token alone could not identify the earning mechanism.
Was a borrowing rate comparable to a staking APR?
A borrowing rate measured interest owed on debt; a staking annual percentage rate (APR) described rewards relative to staked MENDI. Both used percentages, although their denominators and economic direction differed. Subtracting those labels alone did not establish a net return. The borrowed asset, loan balance and reward value needed a common valuation basis for that arithmetic to describe an actual position.
The sunset limited the availability of both activities
The sunset made these relationships historical, even though lending and staking terminology remained visible in the retained interface. The sunset arrangements provided withdrawal access through the interface for a limited period. They also specified subsequent access through smart contracts. That access arrangement concerned existing positions and did not establish renewed availability for lending or staking.
An old staking APR, conversion field or claim button described a different kind of information from an active earning offer. None supplied a fixed post-sunset income promise. A retained reward label applied to its historical arrangement; availability afterward followed the sunset conditions.
Things people ask about Mendifinance
What did the sMendi exchange-rate field measure?
The sMendi exchange-rate field expressed the displayed relationship between sMendi and MENDI. It was separate from the staking APR and claimable-reward fields. Conversion rates described token units, while an annualized reward rate described rewards relative to a stake; claimable fields concerned reward amounts shown in the interface.
When were MENDI and oLYNX staking rewards scheduled?
The retained staking interface described MENDI distributions once a week on a variable day and oLYNX distributions every Wednesday. Those schedules belonged to its staking reward presentation. They were historical schedule descriptions, not a new payout commitment after the protocol's sunset.
How did Deri Protocol's Linea pool participate in the lending model?
The November 2023 integration placed Deri Protocol's Linea pool assets in lending pools to earn additional lending yield. That activity belonged to the supply side of the lending model and increased liquidity in those markets. The separate MENDI staking arrangement distributed protocol revenue to token stakers.
Where did cross-chain deposits enter the lending-versus-staking model?
The historical Squid and Axelar integration routed deposits into lending pools on Linea. It covered deposits from Axelar-supported chains through supported asset routes. The destination was a lending position, so the starting network did not turn the deposit into a MENDI staking position.
Were the Velocore liquidity assets owned by individual MENDI stakers?
The initial Velocore liquidity position was protocol-owned and originated from the community's Liquidity Generation Event. Its yield contributed to the early staking revenue model. Individual stakers committed their own MENDI tokens; receiving a distribution from that model did not transfer ownership of the protocol's liquidity position.
Did LYNX and veLYNX APR labels describe lending interest?
The LYNX and veLYNX APR labels belonged to the retained oLYNX staking-reward breakdown. They appeared as options within that reward component, separate from the interest that borrowers funded in lending markets.
Could a staking APR establish how much was already claimable?
A staking APR described an annualized reward rate, while claimable fields displayed reward amounts. The retained interface separated MENDI and oLYNX claimable balances. Calculating a reward amount needed more information than the APR alone, including the relevant stake and earning period.