Liquity V2 vs Resupply: Rates, Risk and Collateral (2026)

Both protocols mint stablecoins against collateral on Ethereum, but the collateral and borrowing choices are quite different. Liquity V2 accepts ETH, wstETH and rETH, and mints BOLD. Borrowers choose their own interest rate and can change it, with that choice affecting their exposure to redemptions. Resupply accepts crvUSD or frxUSD lending positions in Curve Lend or Fraxlend and mints reUSD; users can keep earning the underlying lending yield while borrowing. Its rate is formula-based rather than user-set. Liquity advertises borrowing up to 91% loan-to-value and Multiply leverage up to 11x. Resupply’s homepage describes leverage up to 20x. These figures are not guarantees of safe borrowing: leverage and high borrowing levels amplify liquidation risk.

Liquity V2 has no fixed interest rate. You choose the rate on your loan, and the cost depends on that choice and market conditions; a lower rate also makes your position more likely to be redeemed against. The project does not publish a specific rate or detail other costs such as one-time fees or liquidation penalties. Community frontend fees and Ethereum gas also need to be checked before transacting. Resupply sets the borrow rate to the highest of half the market lending rate, half the sfrxUSD rate, or 2%, so its published formula includes a 2% minimum. It does not publish a flat fee. The Insurance Pool earns a fee when it is used for liquidations, while depositors receive a share of protocol revenue. Check the app and documentation for current costs before borrowing or depositing.

Both protocols list two audits and describe their contracts as immutable. Liquity V2 says it has no admins and its contracts cannot be upgraded. That removes upgrade-key risk, but also means a flaw cannot be patched by upgrading the contracts. Its named outside dependency is collateral price oracles, and falling collateral prices can trigger liquidation. Liquity also does not run its own frontend, so users must assess the community-run interface they choose. Resupply’s record includes a reported June 2025 exploit that drained nearly $9.6 million. The project has not said how losses were handled or what changed afterward. Resupply also depends on Curve Lend and Fraxlend markets; failures there can affect the protocol, and reUSD can depeg. An Insurance Pool is designed to support liquidations and cover losses, but its depositors accept the risk of covering losses from distressed collateral.

Liquity V2 may suit borrowers who want to use ETH or liquid-staking tokens and value direct control over their borrowing rate. Its BOLD Stability Pools offer a way to deposit BOLD for rewards, and LQTY staking gives voting power over liquidity incentives and may earn protocol fees. Those features come with a hands-on requirement: borrowers need to monitor redemption exposure, collateral levels and their chosen frontend. Resupply is aimed at users who already hold eligible Curve Lend or Fraxlend positions and want to borrow reUSD without giving up the underlying lending yield. Its Insurance Pool and RSUP staking and governance add other participation options, but involve their own risks. Neither design removes liquidation risk, and a displayed maximum leverage is not a recommended borrowing level.

For an ETH-backed loan where you want to set your own rate, Liquity V2 is the clearer choice between these two. Its immutability and lack of admin keys may also appeal to users who prioritize those design features, provided they are comfortable choosing a community frontend and monitoring their position. Resupply has a specific use case: borrowing reUSD against eligible stablecoin lending positions while retaining their yield. But the reported exploit is a substantial concern, and the project has not explained how losses were handled or what changed afterward. That makes Resupply difficult to recommend to users who prioritize a clearer security record. Consider collateral, liquidation exposure, rate mechanics and protocol risks before choosing either option; neither is risk-free.