[TL;DR]
- Traditional financial systems suffer from structural limitations, including monopolistic control by banks and intermediaries, opaque operational methods, and accessibility gaps caused by geographical and temporal constraints.
- DeFi addresses these problems through permissionless trading via liquidity pools and AMMs, automated lending based on collateral, and composability that allows innovative combinations of financial services.
- WaaS serves as the core infrastructure for DeFi’s mass adoption by abstracting complex key management, providing integrated multi-chain interfaces, and supporting enterprise-level security and compliance. It is expected to evolve into a foundation for AI agent-based automation and embedded finance, ushering in an era of financial democratization.
1. Structural Limitations of Traditional Finance
1.1. Gatekeeper System: Exclusive Control by Banks and Intermediaries
Modern financial systems are fundamentally designed as gatekeeper structures. To access financial services, individuals or businesses must go through intermediaries such as banks, securities firms, or insurance companies. This structure grants financial providers monopolistic control, forcing users to comply with their terms and conditions.
The problem is that these gatekeepers are structurally bound to prioritize their own interests. Banks can arbitrarily define loan criteria and choose to favor or exclude certain customer groups. Securities firms set fee structures unilaterally and can restrict access to specific investment products. This centralization of power severely limits the fairness and accessibility of financial services.
Worse still, these intermediaries are interconnected, making the entire system dependent on a small number of core institutions. If a major bank fails, it can paralyze the financial system—as witnessed during the 2008 global financial crisis. Individual users are exposed to these systemic risks without any means of control.
This monopolistic structure also hinders innovation. Traditional institutions have little incentive to adopt new technologies or service models since customers have few alternatives and face high switching costs. As a result, financial services stagnate, and users are forced to endure inefficient and costly systems.
This issue is particularly severe for small businesses and individuals with low credit ratings. If they do not meet conservative screening criteria, they may be entirely excluded from financial services. This structurally limits economic participation and deepens social inequality.
1.2. Opaque Risk Management and Information Asymmetry
Traditional financial institutions operate with fundamental opacity. Most information—such as how loan approvals are determined, how investment product yields are structured, and how fees are calculated—is internally held. Customers are left to rely on limited data provided by institutions, resulting in serious information asymmetry.
This asymmetry causes multiple issues. First, customers cannot accurately assess whether they are paying a fair price. Fee structures and interest rates vary across institutions, making effective comparison nearly impossible. Second, the credit evaluation process works like a black box, preventing users from understanding how their scores are determined.
From the institution’s side, this opacity can lead to moral hazard. Since users cannot observe internal operations, institutions may be tempted to take excessive risks or engage in unfair practices. Many financial scandals have arisen from such opaque operations, and the problems often go unnoticed until it’s too late.
Moreover, financial institutions often intentionally design complex products that are difficult for ordinary users to understand. In the case of derivatives or structured products, these are so complicated that average investors cannot accurately gauge the risks involved. Such complexity is used as a tool to extract higher fees or shift risks to customers.
The same issue arises in risk management. Users lack transparency about what assets the institution is exposed to or what risk policies are in place. As a result, users don’t know how their funds are being managed, leading to unexpected losses. This lack of information amplifies systemic risk, particularly during financial crises.
1.3. Accessibility Gaps Caused by Geographical and Temporal Constraints
Traditional financial systems are heavily reliant on physical infrastructure. In areas without bank branches, ATMs, or card terminals, even basic financial services are unavailable. This is especially problematic in developing countries or rural regions, where a significant portion of the global population remains excluded from the financial system.
Time-based constraints are equally significant. Most services are only available during business hours, and cross-border transactions don’t process on weekends or holidays. In a 24/7 global economy, these restrictions represent clear inefficiencies—especially during emergencies that require urgent fund transfers.
Cross-border financial services are even more constrained. Due to differences in national regulations and time zones, international transactions often experience multi-day delays. Moreover, high remittance fees and exchange rate margins reduce the actual amount received, making such services economically unviable for small or peer-to-peer transactions.
Geographical constraints also create economic inequality. Urban populations have easy access to a variety of financial products and services, while people in remote or underserved areas have few options. This creates a gap in capital accessibility and reinforces economic disparity.
Building traditional financial infrastructure also requires enormous investment. The cost of establishing branches, deploying ATMs, and building communication networks is high, meaning that financial institutions avoid low-profit areas. From a market logic perspective, this makes sense—but socially, it’s a major barrier to financial inclusion.
Cross-border complexity adds another layer of difficulty. International remittances often go through several intermediaries, each charging fees, resulting in long processing times. For small transfers, fees can eat up a large portion of the funds—posing a major burden on individuals, businesses, and families that rely on cross-border payments.
2. DeFi’s Solutions
2.1. Permissionless Trading Through Liquidity Pools and AMMs
DeFi replaces the traditional order book model with liquidity pools and Automated Market Makers (AMMs), creating a trading system without intermediaries. A liquidity pool is a collection of tokens locked in a smart contract, allowing traders to interact with the pool directly at any time. This replaces the role of centralized intermediaries in matching buyers and sellers with an automated pricing algorithm.
The core of an AMM system lies in a mathematical pricing mechanism. The most basic form, the constant product formula (x * y = k), adjusts prices automatically based on the ratio between two tokens. As trading volume increases, slippage becomes more pronounced, but this is a natural part of market equilibrium. These systems operate 24/7 and allow anyone to participate in trading without needing approval or permission from any institution.
Liquidity providers deposit their tokens into the pool and receive a portion of the trading fees as compensation. This is similar to depositing money in a traditional bank, but it’s innovative in that income can be generated without a centralized institution. Liquidity providers can withdraw their share at any time without needing approval or waiting periods.
This system also enables new types of transactions that were impossible in traditional finance. For instance, micro-transactions become economically viable, and users from anywhere in the world can trade under the same conditions. As the size of the pool increases, slippage is reduced, leading to more efficient price discovery.
2.2. Collateralized Automated Lending and Real-Time Liquidation Mechanisms
DeFi lending systems eliminate the need for traditional credit evaluation by using fully automated, collateral-based mechanisms. Borrowers must deposit crypto assets of higher value than the loan they seek, and this collateral is locked in a smart contract until repayment. No credit score, income verification, or paperwork is needed—only sufficient collateral is required for immediate access to a loan.
The system’s stability is ensured through over-collateralization. Typically, borrowers must provide collateral worth at least 150% of the loan amount, creating a safety margin that allows loan recovery even if the asset’s value falls. This structurally prevents bad debts, maintaining the integrity of the lending system.
Real-time liquidation is another innovative aspect of DeFi lending. If the value of the collateral falls below a predetermined threshold, it is automatically sold to repay the loan. This process is fully automated and monitored 24/7, requiring no human intervention. Those who execute the liquidation receive incentives in the form of fees, ensuring efficient operation.
This model provides unprecedented transparency compared to traditional finance. All loan positions are visible on-chain in real time, including collateral ratios, interest rates, and liquidation prices. The logic of the system is encoded in open-source smart contracts, allowing users to understand exactly how it works.
From the lender’s perspective, this system also offers attractive opportunities. Idle assets can be supplied to lending pools to earn interest—without intermediaries—enabling higher yields. Interest rates are dynamically adjusted based on real-time supply and demand, enhancing market efficiency.
2.3. Financial Innovation Through Composability
One of DeFi’s most revolutionary features is composability—the ability to combine different DeFi protocols like LEGO blocks to create new financial services. Since most DeFi protocols offer standardized interfaces, developers can mix and match existing components to build complex, previously unavailable financial products or strategies.
For example, a user could deposit collateral in one protocol to receive a loan and then use that loan to provide liquidity in another protocol to maximize yield. These sequences are executed through chained smart contracts in a single transaction. If any part fails, the entire transaction is rolled back, protecting user assets.
This composability dramatically accelerates financial innovation. Unlike traditional finance, which requires lengthy approval and regulatory review for new products, DeFi allows immediate deployment of new services simply by combining existing protocols. This expands the variety of available services and enables personalized financial solutions tailored to specific needs.
Moreover, composability increases the overall value of the DeFi ecosystem via network effects. Each new protocol added multiplies the number of potential integrations, enabling more sophisticated strategies. Liquidity and user bases grow synergistically, enhancing the robustness of the ecosystem.
Flash loans are a prime example of composability in action. These are loans without collateral that must be repaid within the same transaction block, allowing users to execute arbitrage or liquidation strategies that would otherwise be impossible. This kind of tool redefines what’s possible in finance, something unimaginable in traditional systems.
Composability also greatly improves accessibility to financial services. Complex strategies can be automated through protocol combinations, enabling even non-experts to use advanced financial tools. This is a powerful mechanism for democratizing finance, allowing individuals to access sophisticated services that were previously exclusive to institutional investors.
3. Challenges Facing the DeFi Ecosystem
3.1. MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) and Front-Running
MEV is one of the most complex and controversial issues in the DeFi ecosystem. It refers to the practice of block producers or searchers extracting additional value by manipulating transaction order or inserting their own transactions. A common example is a “sandwich attack,” where a bot detects a large trade and inserts its own transactions before and after it to profit from price changes. This causes the original user to receive a worse price, resulting in a real financial loss.
Front-running is a side effect of blockchain transparency. Because all pending transactions are visible in the mempool, bots can detect profitable trades in advance and outbid users by offering higher gas fees, executing their own trades first. This is particularly problematic in arbitrage and liquidation opportunities, where competition is intense and ordinary users are often excluded.
More critically, MEV behavior undermines overall network efficiency. The gas fee wars among bots drive up transaction costs for everyone and clog block space with MEV-targeted transactions, reducing throughput for normal users.
Various solutions are being explored to tackle these problems, including commit-reveal schemes, private mempools, and fair ordering protocols. While some of these are already implemented, they involve trade-offs and none provide a perfect solution yet.
MEV also poses a philosophical challenge to DeFi’s decentralization ideals. If a small number of sophisticated bots extract most MEV, the ecosystem begins to resemble a centralized structure, contradicting the vision of a fair and open financial system that DeFi aims to promote.
3.2. Smart Contract Vulnerabilities and Protocol Risk Management
Immutability is both a strength and a weakness of smart contracts. Once deployed, contracts cannot be changed—meaning bugs or vulnerabilities can lead to catastrophic fund losses. Many of the most notable DeFi hacks have resulted from logic errors or unexpected interactions between contracts. Reentrancy attacks, integer overflows, and permission mismanagement are just a few common issues.
Even though code audits have become standard, they do not guarantee security. Especially in complex protocols involving multiple smart contracts, composability risks may not be detected through isolated audits. Also, updates or new feature rollouts can introduce fresh vulnerabilities, even in previously audited code.
Governance risk is another serious concern. Many DeFi protocols advertise decentralized governance, but in practice, a few large token holders often dominate decision-making. This concentration of voting power can result in protocol direction being controlled by a small group, and in extreme cases, malicious proposals may pass—sometimes using flash loans to execute governance attacks.
Oracle dependency is a major risk for protocols that rely on off-chain data. If oracles are manipulated or malfunction, all dependent protocols are affected. Price-feed dependent systems like lending or derivatives are especially vulnerable to oracle attacks. Although using multiple oracles can reduce risk, it increases cost and complexity.
DeFi developers also face a dilemma between upgradeability and immutability. A fully immutable protocol cannot fix bugs, while an upgradeable one reintroduces centralization risks. Many projects try to balance this with time locks or multisig controls, but no perfect solution currently exists.
3.3. Gas Fee Volatility and Layer 1 Scalability Bottlenecks
Gas fee volatility on Ethereum is one of the most pressing real-world problems for DeFi users. Depending on network congestion, transaction costs can range from a few dollars to hundreds, creating major barriers for small-scale users. Complex DeFi transactions that require multiple contract calls are even more expensive, and if the transaction fails, gas is still consumed—resulting in additional user losses.
The unpredictability of gas fees degrades the user experience. A transaction may be delayed or fail if the initially set gas price becomes insufficient due to network changes. Alternatively, users may set gas prices too high and overpay. This uncertainty makes DeFi difficult for non-expert users to engage with confidently.
Ethereum’s Layer 1 throughput is fundamentally limited, processing only around 15 transactions per second. When demand spikes, bottlenecks become severe—not just slowing the network but making even basic token transfers economically unviable.
The interaction between MEV and gas auctions worsens the problem. Bots compete for lucrative opportunities, rapidly driving up gas prices and crowding out normal users. During periods of high market volatility, gas prices can spike dramatically due to a surge in liquidation and arbitrage transactions.
Layer 2 solutions have emerged as a response, but they are not a complete fix. Each Layer 2 network has different security models and trade-offs, and interoperability issues between Layer 1 and different Layer 2s remain unsolved. Additionally, most DeFi liquidity is still concentrated on Ethereum Layer 1, so Layer 2 users often face high slippage or limited token availability.
Cross-chain bridge security risks are another growing concern. Bridges are prime targets for hackers, and many major exploits have occurred via bridge vulnerabilities. This limits the growth of multi-chain DeFi and discourages users from moving assets between chains.
4. Core Infrastructure for DeFi Adoption: WaaS
4.1. Abstracting Complex Key Management
One of the biggest barriers to DeFi adoption is the complexity of private key management. Users must securely store 12- or 24-word seed phrases, configure hardware wallets, and manage various network and token addresses. The risk of losing funds permanently due to key loss or phishing attacks creates significant fear and discourages adoption. WaaS (Wallet-as-a-Service) solves this by abstracting key management at the application layer for enterprises and developers.
WaaS platforms utilize advanced cryptographic technologies like MPC (Multi-Party Computation) or TSS (Threshold Signature Scheme) to distribute private key control. Since no single key fragment is stored in one place, the system remains secure even if one part is compromised. This model is significantly more secure than traditional hardware or software wallets, while completely shielding users from technical complexity.
User authentication can mimic traditional web services, using familiar methods like email/password login, social logins, or biometric authentication. This significantly reduces the learning curve of blockchain interfaces. Account recovery systems also resemble conventional web services, ensuring users don’t permanently lose access to their funds if they misplace a seed phrase.
Furthermore, WaaS facilitates multi-user wallet management, such as family or enterprise accounts. Functions like multi-sig wallet setup and role-based permission control can be handled with a few API calls. This makes it easier for companies to build internal control systems necessary for DeFi adoption, accelerating institutional involvement.
Abstracting key management also solves inheritance and succession issues. In traditional DeFi, if a keyholder dies or becomes incapacitated, funds become inaccessible. WaaS enables legal procedures for asset transfer and emergency access, a critical step for DeFi to evolve from an experimental tool to a mature financial infrastructure.
4.2. Unified Interfaces for Multi-Chain DeFi Access
Today’s DeFi ecosystem is fragmented across chains like Ethereum, Polygon, Avalanche, and Solana. Users must configure separate wallets and learn distinct interfaces for each network. They must hold different gas tokens and deal with complex, risky bridge operations to move assets between chains. WaaS addresses this by offering a unified interface that abstracts away multi-chain complexity for both users and developers.
WaaS platforms automatically manage blockchain connections on the backend. When users interact with a DeFi protocol, WaaS selects the optimal chain or offers suitable options. It can recommend routes based on factors such as gas fees, transaction speed, liquidity, and security. Users don’t need to understand the technical details to complete their transactions efficiently.
Cross-chain transaction complexity is also abstracted at the WaaS layer. For example, if a user wants to use assets on Ethereum in a Polygon-based DeFi protocol, they would typically need to bridge assets, acquire gas tokens, and reconfigure network settings. With WaaS, this entire flow is automated—the user simply submits their request.
Another major benefit is aggregated liquidity visualization and access. WaaS can aggregate liquidity spread across multiple chains, offering users the most favorable trading conditions. Even large trades that would cause significant slippage on a single chain can be executed efficiently by tapping into multi-chain liquidity—a particularly important feature for institutional users.
From a portfolio management perspective, WaaS offers tremendous advantages. Users can view and manage assets across multiple chains in a single dashboard. They can implement rebalancing or yield optimization strategies across networks, allowing for highly sophisticated asset management.
For developers, multi-chain support is a game-changer. Instead of integrating with each chain individually, they can use a single WaaS API to access major DeFi protocols across chains. This drastically reduces development time and cost, and minimizes code changes when new chains are added.
4.3. Enterprise-Grade Security and Compliance Support
For enterprises, security and regulatory compliance are top concerns when adopting DeFi. Traditional DeFi tools often lack the audit controls and security guarantees required by businesses. WaaS platforms address this by offering enterprise-grade security architecture and compliance tools.
Given the industry's exposure to hacks and exploits, robust security architecture is central to WaaS. These platforms often utilize HSM (Hardware Security Modules), geographically distributed backups, encrypted communication, and zero-trust network models. Many hold certifications such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001, which build trust among enterprise clients and ensure compatibility with existing IT security policies.
Transaction approval workflows are designed to meet enterprise internal control standards. Features include approval authority by transaction amount, multi-step authorization, time-based restrictions, and whitelist management. These can be integrated via API with existing ERP or financial systems, maintaining continuity with established workflows.
Real-time monitoring and alert systems are critical for enterprise risk management. WaaS platforms offer tools for detecting abnormal transaction patterns, monitoring market risk, and managing exposure limits. Early detection of liquidation risks or smart contract anomalies helps protect enterprise assets.
Regulatory reporting and tax management are also core features. Every transaction is automatically logged and categorized, simplifying the generation of documents needed for tax filing or regulatory audits. WaaS formats data to align with various national accounting and tax frameworks, reducing compliance burdens for enterprise DeFi operations.
KYC and AML compliance is a must-have for WaaS. Features like counterparty screening, suspicious transaction detection, and sanctions list checks help businesses operate within legal requirements while leveraging DeFi’s advantages. This is especially critical for financial institutions or businesses in heavily regulated industries.
Data sovereignty and privacy protection are also essential. WaaS platforms ensure the secure handling of transaction data and offer the option to store it in specific regional data centers if required. They comply with regulations like GDPR and implement additional safeguards to protect business confidentiality. This enables global enterprises to offer consistent DeFi services across diverse regulatory environments.
5. Future Outlook and Conclusion
5.1. Intent-Based Transactions and DeFi Automation with AI Agents
The future of DeFi lies in abstracting the complexities of transaction execution. Instead of manually managing each step, users will simply express their intent, and automated systems powered by AI agents will determine and execute the optimal strategy.
In an intent-based system, a user might say, “I want to swap Token A for Token B with minimal slippage,” or “I want to optimize yield while reducing portfolio risk.” The AI agent analyzes these high-level objectives and automatically constructs and executes the optimal multi-protocol, multi-chain strategy.
These AI systems will be even more powerful when built on top of WaaS infrastructure. With WaaS providing multi-chain integration and complexity abstraction, AI agents will perceive the entire DeFi ecosystem as a single, unified financial market, enabling seamless optimization. Real-time price tracking, liquidity analysis, and gas fee forecasting can be combined to tailor strategies to each user’s preferences and risk appetite.
With the adoption of machine learning and predictive analytics, these systems will become more sophisticated—learning market patterns, analyzing user behavior, and preemptively managing risks. For example, if a protocol shows signs of a security issue or if market volatility is projected to spike, the system could automatically reallocate assets to safer options.
We can also expect the emergence of personalized AI financial advisors. These agents would continuously monitor opportunities and suggest optimal actions based on the user's financial goals, risk tolerance, and transaction history. This would go beyond automation and enable proactive asset management, offering a DeFi-based equivalent of traditional private banking services.
AI agents will also play a key role in DAO governance. By analyzing complex proposals and assessing their impact on the user’s interests, they could provide voting recommendations—or even cast votes on behalf of users. This could increase governance participation and lead to more democratic decision-making in DeFi ecosystems.
5.2. The Rise of Hybrid Models Combining TradFi and DeFi
Rather than a full migration to DeFi, it is more likely that the mainstream model will be a hybrid that combines the strengths of traditional finance (TradFi)—regulatory compliance, client relationships, credit evaluation—with DeFi’s transparency, efficiency, and innovation.
One of the most prominent examples is the integration of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) into DeFi. If CBDCs are used as base assets in DeFi protocols, it may be possible to create a financial ecosystem where government monetary policy and DeFi innovation co-exist, improving both stability and efficiency.
Traditional banks are also increasingly offering DeFi-related services. By using WaaS infrastructure, banks can provide DeFi investment products or allocate their liquidity into DeFi protocols for higher yields. This allows banks to retain their intermediary role while leveraging DeFi’s advantages, and lets clients benefit from DeFi without needing to learn its technicalities.
Insurance products integrated with DeFi are another emerging trend. New offerings are being created to cover smart contract risks and impermanent loss, making DeFi more attractive to institutional investors. Traditional insurers are exploring how to underwrite DeFi-specific risks, improving the ecosystem’s overall trust and stability.
Credit scoring and evaluation systems are also evolving through the fusion of traditional credit history and on-chain activity data. This enables more accurate and inclusive credit models, potentially allowing for under-collateralized lending in DeFi, expanding access to underserved populations.
5.3. Everyday Embedded Finance Powered by WaaS
The true potential of WaaS will be realized when financial services become seamlessly embedded into everyday platforms. In this future, purchasing on an e-commerce platform could automatically trigger a DeFi investment, or an in-game NFT could be used as collateral for a loan—all without the user consciously engaging with DeFi.
Embedded DeFi solutions for small businesses and SMEs will also be a major growth area. With DeFi payment and liquidity tools integrated into POS systems, merchants will be able to optimize cash flow and deploy idle funds without financial expertise. Auto-loans based on sales data or automated supplier payments will dramatically improve financial management efficiency.
Payroll management integrated with DeFi also presents compelling possibilities. A portion of employee salaries could be automatically invested into DeFi protocols, or company benefit systems could be structured using DeFi products. This would support long-term asset growth for employees while giving companies new tools for talent acquisition and retention.
The convergence of IoT and DeFi presents a futuristic scenario where data generated by smart city sensors is tokenized and traded, or where EV charging stations autonomously settle energy transactions via DeFi protocols. WaaS will serve as the infrastructure enabling these complex systems to operate safely and efficiently.
In the creator economy, WaaS-powered DeFi will unlock new monetization models. Content creators could receive fan support and automatically diversify those funds across DeFi strategies, or even obtain loans based on future projected earnings. This enhances creators’ income stability and allows them to focus on producing better content.
Conclusion
Ultimately, WaaS will not just simplify DeFi—it will redefine the nature of financial services. By dismantling the gatekeeper model of traditional finance, it enables universal, transparent, and fair access to financial tools. This marks the beginning of a new era of financial democratization.
This transformation will be gradual but irreversible, and WaaS will sit at the heart of that transition. In the coming years, we will witness finance evolve from a specialized domain into an everyday utility—and WaaS will be the starting point of that future.
[WEPIN Wallet SNS Channels]
