Below is a detailed comparison (in Vietnamese) that highlights the core differences between @Dolomite and the two “blue-chip” DeFi protocols Aave and Compound. The goal is to clearly show investors: #Dolomite what the differences are, where the strengths lie, and in which cases it may be a more reasonable or less reasonable choice compared to the other two projects.
Quick summary
Dolomite: Described as having actual revenue from operations, a 3 token model (DOLO / veDOLO / oDOLO) aimed at clearly separating liquidity function — governance — incentives, suitable for investors who value cash flow and sustainable token architecture.
Aave: A large lending/borrowing protocol, notable for its history, security, and open ecosystem; the AAVE token serves as risk insurance, governance, and staking.
Compound: The early “paradigmatic” lending/borrowing protocol of DeFi with a self-adjusting interest rate model and COMP token distribution mechanisms to encourage usage and participation in governance.
1. Revenue model & financial sustainability
Dolomite
Emphasized to have real revenue from platform activities (transaction fees, service fees, etc.).
Positive cash flow (as initially described) increases the prospect of “self-sustaining” without fully relying on issuing new tokens.
Aave
Generate revenue from platform fees, net interest rate percentages, and other fee mechanisms.
Has treasury and staking/safety module mechanisms to protect users and create reserve sources.
Compound
The main revenue comes from the interest rate spread in the lending market — a more basic model; in the early stages, it heavily relies on the distribution of COMP as an incentive for growth.
Clear differentiation: Dolomite is described as having a “greater focus on real revenue” as a competitive factor, while Aave/Compound are large platforms that have developed standardized financial mechanisms/fees for lending/borrowing.
2. Tokenomics & governance
Dolomite (3-token)
$DOLO echo short-term trading/liquidity.
veDOLO (lock ticket) for governance rights and long-term benefits — encouraging long-term token holding.
oDOLO specializes in liquidity incentives.
This architecture clearly separates functions, reducing conflicts between short-term traders and long-term holders.
Aave
The AAVE token is used for governance, staking in the safety module (reserve protection), and sometimes for incentives.
Aave's governance is quite strong with snapshots and on-chain/off-chain proposals.
Compound
COMP is the governance token, distributed to encourage supply/loaning of assets.
The history of COMP distribution has sparked debate as it encourages yield farming but also helps quickly expand TVL.
Differentiation: Dolomite separates token functions more (3 tokens) — a design aimed at reducing conflicts of interest among participating groups, while Aave/Compound follow a 1 token model but apply staking/treasury to address risks and encourage.
3. Products & functional scope
Dolomite
Focus on integrated financial experiences (lending, liquidity, incentives) and token design aimed at balancing short-term trading and long-term governance.
If there is indeed significant revenue, it indicates the product has real usage.
Aave
Very strong in lending/borrowing, with complex features such as aTokens, rate switching, flash loans… and is a platform integrated with many other applications (composability).
Large ecosystem, many cross-protocol integrations.
Compound
Focus on standard lending/renting, widely used interest-rate models.
Simple, easy to understand — a plus for safety and stability.
Differentiation: Aave/Compound are “infrastructure” for lending with a wide range of integrations; Dolomite can compete through integrated experiences and a direct fee revenue model.
4. Risk & security
Dolomite
Risks depend on maintaining sustainable revenue and smart contract security. The complex token model requires transparent governance to avoid abuse.
Aave
Considered one of the safer protocols due to audits, bug bounties, and operational history; however, no system is completely risk-free.
Compound
The protocol has experienced many early-stage challenges (token distribution mechanisms, configuration vulnerabilities in the past), but is fundamentally a large, proven platform.
Differentiation: Investors need to consider audits, bounties, and specific security histories of each project — Dolomite needs to prove equivalent safety to be compared on par with Aave/Compound.
5. Market share, reputation & liquidity (ecosystem effects)
Aave / Compound
Has the advantage of “first-mover / scale” — many partners, high TVL, many component applications used (wallets, dashboards, cross-protocol). This creates a positive feedback loop for liquidity and stability.
Dolomite
If TVL is smaller than the other two protocols, Dolomite compensates with a better revenue/TVL ratio — meaning the ability to generate higher value from managed assets. This is an attractive indicator for profit-focused investors.
Differentiation: Aave/Compound have network advantages; Dolomite, if performing well in revenue, could provide more realistic ROI for token holders despite smaller TVL scale.
6. Who should consider investing in each project?
Investors seek “value” (cash flow & undervalued): Dolomite may be attractive if you believe in real revenue and token architecture aimed at preserving long-term value.
Investors seek “solid, blue-chip DeFi” with wide integration: Aave and Compound are suitable options due to stability, liquidity, and position in the ecosystem.
Investors accept systemic risk to hunt for network profits: May choose smaller projects like Dolomite with the expectation of early profits if the product really grows.
7. Conclusion — Not a “one size fits all”
Dolomite: Strength lies in the separated functional token model and the ability to generate real revenue — a reasonable argument to consider Dolomite a valuable asset rather than a meme. However, investors need to further assess TVL scale, security history, and transparency in governance.
Aave & Compound: These are large lending infrastructure platforms, with network advantages and reputation — suitable for portfolios seeking stability in DeFi.
