Current vs Project 0: Sui lending or portfolio borrowing? (2026)

Both protocols lend, but they serve different ecosystems and borrowing needs. Current is built on Sui and uses isolated markets, designed to keep a problem in one market from directly spreading to others. Its product also includes one-click yield multiplication and a focus on tokenized real-economy yield. Project 0 runs on Solana and centers on Unified Borrow: users can borrow against a DeFi portfolio spread across several venues rather than relying on collateral from one venue. Its markets cover assets including SOL, WBTC, ETH and cbBTC. Their reported TVL is close: about $56.7 million for Current and $56.8 million for Project 0. That similarity does not make the products interchangeable. Your chain and preferred collateral model are the main decision points.

Current’s most distinctive feature is one-click yield multiplication, which is described as increasing exposure by looping deposits and borrows. That can simplify a leveraged strategy, but leverage also increases liquidation risk. Current additionally focuses on tokenized yield from real-economy assets, which brings issuer and counterparty risks beyond smart-contract risk. Project 0’s main differentiator is Unified Borrow across venues. Its interface also lists Strategies, Vaults, Stake, Pay and Portfolio sections, although details for some of these products are not published. Both protocols have a features score of 7; Current’s ease-of-use score is 7, compared with 6.5 for Project 0. Those scores are a useful broad comparison, not a substitute for checking whether a specific market, asset or strategy meets your needs.

Neither protocol publishes a fee schedule. Current has not published its borrow and supply rates, any protocol cut of interest, or the costs of its multiply feature. Its app is where users would see live rates and fees before confirming a transaction; Sui network gas fees also apply. Project 0 has not published protocol fees, liquidation penalties or network fees. Its Markets page shows APY and liquidity by asset, so check the relevant market before borrowing or supplying. Do not assume the displayed APY represents every cost of using a position. In both cases, review the transaction details and current market terms before confirming. If you cannot determine the total costs or the conditions that could trigger liquidation, avoid committing funds until those terms are clear.

Current has two audits listed, but the auditors, dates and findings are not published. Project 0 has no confirmed audit coverage: an Audits link appears on its site, but its contents are not public. This leaves users without enough public detail to compare audit scope or findings. Both protocols are young and have short operating histories. Lending carries smart-contract, oracle and liquidation risks; using leverage can make liquidation risk more significant. Project 0’s cross-venue borrowing also exposes positions to the risks of every venue involved. Current’s tokenized real-world yield adds issuer and counterparty risk that code audits cannot remove. Neither protocol lists a governance or protocol token. Before using either, examine the current market terms and consider whether you can bear the possibility of losing funds.

Choose Current if you use Sui and want isolated lending markets, or if its one-click multiplication and tokenized real-economy yield features match your strategy. Its two listed audits are a positive point, but their details are not published, and the protocol has a short track record. Choose Project 0 if you use Solana and specifically want to borrow against collateral spread across several venues. Its broader listed product menu may also appeal if you want to explore lending alongside vaults or strategies, but those products are not all described publicly and audit coverage is unconfirmed. Neither is a clear choice for someone who requires published fees, a long history, or detailed public audit findings. Base the decision first on chain and borrowing model, then verify current terms and risks.