Current vs Dolomite: Sui focus or multi-chain lending? (2026)

Both protocols offer lending and borrowing with isolated positions or markets, but they differ in scale and scope. Current is built for Sui and focuses on isolated lending markets, one-click yield multiplication, and tokenized real-economy yield. Its listed TVL is about $56.7 million, and its history is short: it is listed from 31 March 2026. Dolomite spans seven listed chains and reports about $185.3 million in TVL. Its review describes support for more than 1,000 unique assets, plus borrowing against more than 100 assets. It has been listed since 2022. The figures point to Dolomite as the broader, more established option, while Current is a narrower choice for users specifically interested in Sui and its tokenized-yield focus. TVL is a snapshot, not a guarantee of liquidity or safety.

Current’s main strategy feature is a one-click action to multiply yield, typically by looping deposits and borrows to increase exposure. That can make a leveraged position easier to set up, but it also raises liquidation risk. Dolomite offers Zap, which routes swaps and other actions inside a borrow position, including looping, hedging, and repayment in one transaction. It also lists curated strategies that users can filter by APR, risk level, and chain. These tools give Dolomite a wider set of ways to manage positions, but neither a convenient interface nor an advertised strategy removes market risk. Current’s distinguishing investment focus is tokenized real-economy yield beyond standard tokenized Treasuries. That adds dependence on off-chain originators and issuers. Choose based on the assets and strategy you actually intend to use, rather than the number of features alone.

Neither of our reviews provides a complete protocol fee schedule. Current’s published fee information is missing for borrow and supply rates, any protocol share of interest, and costs associated with yield multiplication. Its app is described as showing live rates and fees before confirmation, and Sui network gas applies to transactions. Dolomite also does not have a clearly published full fee schedule. Its homepage shows sample ETH market figures: 4.87% supply APY, 2.75% borrow APY, and a 5.00% liquidation penalty, alongside LTV and liquidation-threshold figures. These are examples, not fixed terms. Network gas applies, and Zap swaps may add DEX aggregator routing costs. Check the actual market and transaction details in each app before acting. Do not compare the sample Dolomite ETH rates with Current as though they were a complete or like-for-like fee comparison.

Both protocols carry smart-contract, oracle, and liquidation risks. Current lists two audits, but public sources do not identify the auditors, dates, or findings. It is also new, and its tokenized real-world yield exposure adds issuer and counterparty risks that code audits cannot remove. Dolomite’s review lists two audits, while its project materials describe six independent audits and 100% line, statement, and branch coverage on production contracts; the audit counts differ between public sources. It also describes an open bug bounty. Dolomite’s long-tail asset range can bring thin-liquidity or oracle risks, and leveraged positions may be liquidated. Neither audit claims nor TVL eliminate the possibility of loss. Use particular caution with borrowing and looping, and review the live position parameters and asset risks before depositing.

Choose Current if your priority is a Sui-native lending protocol with isolated markets and an explicit focus on tokenized real-economy yield. Its one-click multiplication feature may suit users who understand leveraged lending, but its short operating history and limited published product details make careful review important. Choose Dolomite if you want more chain and asset options, integrated position actions, and curated strategies. Its listing history dates to 2022 and its TVL is higher, but its broad asset coverage and leveraged tools also require attention to liquidity, oracle, and liquidation conditions. Both have an ease-of-use score of 7, so that score does not separate them. For either protocol, start with the exact market, current rates, collateral limits, and transaction costs rather than relying on headline features.