CoinLoan vs Figment

The core architecture of CoinLoan centered on three distinct retail and institutional products: Interest Accounts, Crypto-Backed Loans, and a simplified spot exchange module. In its primary operating model, depositors supplied major digital assets such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, and key stablecoins like USDC and USDT, alongside euro deposits via SEPA transfers. Interest yields accrued daily and distributed monthly, with promotional headline rates reaching upward of 8 to 12 percent depending on asset type, duration, and native CLT staking tiers.

On the borrowing side, the platform offered collateralized credit lines without traditional credit checks. Borrowers selected custom loan-to-value ratios typically configured at 20, 35, 50, or 70 percent. Higher collateral commitments yielded lower interest costs, allowing users to borrow stablecoins or fiat currency while holding their digital collateral on balance sheet. The ecosystem integrated the CoinLoan Token to offer tiered fee discounts and boosted yields, though this mechanism introduced circular liquidity exposure when broader market conditions contracted and collateral values dropped rapidly.

Figment delivers staking-as-a-service infrastructure designed specifically for institutional asset managers, exchanges, custodians, and decentralized protocol foundations. The platform maintains active, monitored validator nodes across more than thirty leading proof-of-stake protocols, encompassing major networks such as Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Avalanche, Near, and various Cosmos application chains. Organizations can deploy dedicated private validator nodes or direct delegations toward public enterprise clusters depending on balance size and architectural preferences.

Beyond standard bare-metal validator operations, Figment equips institutional engineering teams with developer tooling, including robust API endpoints and webhooks for automated staking, validator lifecycle tracking, and programmatic rewards harvesting. The Figment App serves as a centralized operational dashboard, offering institutional clients granular visibility into active stakes, historical reward distributions, commission deductions, and node uptime metrics across multi-chain portfolios.

For enterprise platforms embedding staking into consumer or custodial products, Figment acts as the underlying execution layer. Custody providers and financial institutions integrate Figment staking infrastructure directly into their existing custody environments without transferring control of funds, maintaining a clean technical separation between key storage and transaction validation.

CoinLoan structured its business model around interest rate spreads, collecting higher borrowing rates from loan originations while paying lower annual percentage yields to passive depositors. The platform did not assess ongoing monthly account management charges, and standard SEPA euro transfers were generally processed without platform surcharges, although intermediary banking charges could apply depending on the participating financial institution. Cryptographic network transaction fees applied to external blockchain withdrawals, calculated dynamically based on network congestion.

Borrowing costs varied inversely with the initial loan-to-value ratio. A lower loan-to-value ratio such as 20 percent offered borrowing rates near 4.95 percent, whereas a 70 percent ratio pushed nominal annual borrowing costs toward 11.95 percent. Staking native CLT tokens enabled rate discounts of up to 20 percent on borrowing fees or equivalent yield increases on savings accounts. However, withdrawal limits were sharply curtailed during periods of market stress, ultimately freezing retail asset outflows as liquidity shortfalls led to formal restructuring and court administration.

Figment utilizes a protocol commission model where fees are typically deducted directly from gross on-chain staking rewards rather than invoiced as flat monthly infrastructure costs. Standard protocol commission rates vary across supported blockchains, reflecting individual network tokenomics, hardware requirements, and custom client volume tier agreements. For dedicated institutional validator clusters, customized fee agreements or software-as-a-service infrastructure fees may apply depending on technical configuration, custom service level agreements, and support requirements.

Because Figment does not custody digital assets, all principal deposits and generated staking rewards settle directly to client-controlled wallet addresses or whitelisted institutional custody accounts according to protocol rules. Figment does not apply proprietary withdrawal charges, spread markups, or liquidity exit penalties beyond native network transaction fees and protocol commission percentages agreed in enterprise contracts.

Yield realization timelines, unbonding schedules, and payout frequencies depend strictly on the underlying network protocol mechanics. For instance, Ethereum rewards distribute on-chain according to consensus rules, while networks like Cosmos or Polkadot enforce native unbonding windows ranging from two to four weeks. Stakers must account for these native blockchain rules when modeling portfolio liquidity.

From a custodial perspective, CoinLoan operated an entirely centralized custody structure. Customer assets were pooled and managed through institutional custodian infrastructure, including arrangements with BitGo that included commercial digital asset insurance wrappers against physical loss or external server compromise. Account level user controls included two factor authentication, biometric mobile logins, address whitelisting, and automated email confirmation notifications for sensitive account balance actions and withdrawal requests.

Despite standard defensive infrastructure, pooled custodial models inherently blend depositor funds into company balance sheets to generate yield via institutional lending and collateralized loans. The custodial agreements did not segregate retail holdings into bankruptcy remote trusts. Consequently, when institutional liquidity dried up and market volatility triggered collateral liquidations, the platform lacked the liquid reserves necessary to satisfy continuous withdrawal requests, leaving account holders subject to general creditor standing under Estonian insolvency administration rather than possessing direct ownership of segregated private keys.

Security architecture at Figment centers strictly on non-custodial operations, ensuring that clients retain full ownership and administrative control over their cryptographic private keys and staking withdrawal credentials at all times. Figment operates validation nodes and signs blocks on behalf of delegators, but never maintains access to funds or holds authorization to transfer principal assets out of client-managed custody vaults.

To mitigate technical and operational vulnerabilities, Figment maintains independent SOC 2 Type II compliance and ISO 27001 certifications covering its infrastructure management and operational workflows. Node deployment utilizes distributed cloud and bare-metal environments across diverse geographical data centers, incorporating robust hardware security modules, multi-region failover, and active anti-DDoS mitigations to sustain high validator uptime and prevent double-signing events.

Figment provides commercial slashing coverage policies for eligible institutional clients, designed to protect against potential financial losses resulting from validator downtime penalties or accidental infrastructure errors. While these operational measures significantly diminish technical failure risks, delegators still operate within the broader regulatory and software failure risks inherent to public distributed consensus protocols.

CoinLoan operated primarily under financial service registrations issued by the Estonian Financial Intelligence Unit, allowing it to provide virtual currency wallet and exchange services throughout the European Economic Area and selected international jurisdictions. Access was restricted for residents of the United States, sanctioned regions, and countries with stringent local licensing mandates. Identity verification was mandatory for all users, requiring government photo identification, proof of residence, and anti money laundering screening prior to initiating deposits or loans.

User support was historically delivered through live chat interfaces, a ticketed email support desk, and community announcement channels. Following the emergence of financial distress and subsequent court rulings in Tallinn, standard consumer operations and automated support pipelines transitioned toward administrative notices, legal claims portals, and official liquidator communications. For existing claimants, engagement shifted from customer service inquiries to formal creditor documentation and verification via appointed legal representatives.

Headquartered in Canada and operating globally, Figment structures its products to comply with international enterprise standards, serving hedge funds, venture funds, registered investment advisers, public companies, and global fintech institutions. The company maintains strict enterprise onboarding workflows, executing standard Know Your Customer and anti-money laundering due diligence before provisioning dedicated validator infrastructure or enterprise API services.

Customer support for enterprise clients includes dedicated technical account managers, specialized integration engineers, and around-the-clock infrastructure monitoring. Service level agreements provide intended to provide response times, proactive incident notifications, and scheduled operational reviews, catering specifically to institutional expectations that standard retail community channels cannot satisfy.

Comprehensive tax and accounting support represents a core component of the platform. Figment provides downloadable, auditable reporting tools that export reward histories, cost-basis calculations, and protocol event logs in formats compatible with major institutional crypto accounting platforms, easing quarterly financial reporting and internal audit requirements for corporate treasuries.

Centralized crypto yield products inherently carry structural credit and liquidity hazards that differentiate them from regulated retail bank deposits. Yield generation relies on rehypothecating deposited assets to third party borrowers or deploying liquidity into market making channels. In the event of severe market volatility, collateral liquidation delays or institutional borrower defaults can create unrecoverable balance sheet deficits.

Retail depositors on custodial earn platforms do not benefit from statutory deposit insurance schemes such as FDIC or European national deposit assurance schemes. In the event of legal insolvency, funds become part of the collective bankruptcy estate. Recovery outcomes depend on asset realization by the court appointed trustee, legal priorities, and the net valuation of remaining cryptographic and fiat reserves after legal administration costs are deducted.

Delegating to Figment validators mitigates operational node failure risks through enterprise-grade DevOps, but it does not eliminate systemic blockchain network vulnerabilities. All proof-of-stake delegators remain exposed to smart contract bugs, sudden hard forks, and native protocol governance changes that could alter yield rates or unbonding periods. While Figment provides commercial slashing protections under qualified institutional contracts, such policies cover specific operational faults rather than market-wide asset depreciation or underlying blockchain consensus failures.

Organizations must evaluate native protocol lockup schedules and liquidity constraints before allocating balance sheet capital. Figment maintains redundant failover infrastructure and continuous monitoring to prevent validator double-signing and downtime penalties, yet market participants should account for protocol-level slashing conditions that arise from broader decentralized network events outside validator operational control.