Spark vs Fluid (Instadapp) Spark leads by 7 points.
Spark scores 7 points above Fluid (Instadapp), led by oracle liquidation price and rate authorship. Spark ranks #2 and Fluid (Instadapp) #7 of 8 published lending & borrowing. Every term of the gap is on the ledger below; the inputs are on the audit receipt.
Spark80
vs
Fluid (Instadapp)73
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99 · ranks #2 and #7 of 8
Spark scores 7 points above Fluid (Instadapp), led by oracle liquidation price and rate authorship.
Spark #2 of 880
Fluid (Instadapp) #7 of 873
Scores are out of 100; published scores fall within 41–99; a bar is empty at 41 and full at 99.
Why, term by termSpark leads on 2 of 4 published criteria; Fluid (Instadapp) on 0. The terms sum to the gap.
TermSparkFluid (Instadapp)WeightPoints
Oracle liquidation price8/106/107.7+4.0for Spark+2.0 of 32
Rate authorship10/108/105.8+3.0for Spark+1.5 of 32
Net of the terms+7.0
Reproduced gap+7.0
Weight is in points of the 86-point weighted total. Points are score points of the gap between the two.
SparkScore 80SparkLend is an Ethereum-only Aave v3 fork run as Sky's in-house money market: prices come from a three-oracle median of RedStone, Chainlink and Chronicle with a Uniswap TWAP as last resort, your deposit is never re-routed by a curator, and the borrow rate is an immutable per-reserve IRM — SSR-anchored on the stablecoin reserves — that Sky governance can only change by redeploying the contract.Strength: Rate authorship — 10/10Watch-out: Read the oracle-type field on your collateral in the app before you post it, and read the liquidity line before you supply. SparkLend does not price every asset at market: 'stablecoins such as USDS and DAI use a fixed price of 1.00 USD, which does not deviate even if the asset's market price moves away from this value' (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend/guides/oracles). If you post USDS or DAI as collateral, a real-world depeg will not move your health factor at all — and the peg-ratio killswitch that exists for exactly this failure covers only 'wstETH, rETH, weETH, cbBTC, WBTC, LBTC', not the fixed-price stablecoins (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend). USDS is issued by Sky, whose governance both sets that $1.00 constant and authors your borrow rate, so the protection and the exposure share a controller. Second, the USDC supply rate you are being shown was deliberately engineered by thinning the withdrawal buffer, and Spark's own risk body said so before the vote: 'At 98% utilization, only about 2% of supplied USDC is immediately available before new deposits, repayments, liquidations, or other liquidity sources are needed. Withdrawals become more fragile', and 'The proposal improves the displayed supply rate by accepting a thinner liquidity buffer' (Spark Risk Council, 2026-06-22, https://forum.skyeco.com/t/july-2-2026-proposed-changes-to-spark-for-upcoming-spell/27982).Fluid (Instadapp)Score 73Shared-liquidity money market where collateral and debt can sit inside a Fluid DEX position; publishes per-vault oracle contract, LTV, liquidation threshold, penalty and absorbed bad debt live via its own API, and disclosed a ~$21M Resolv-driven shortfall (incident 22 Mar 2026) on its governance forum in amounts its own marketing recap then restates as $9.7M and attributes to the wrong payer.Strength: Rate authorship — 8/10Watch-out: Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Quick facts
At a glance
3 of 4 rows read the same for both.
FactSparkFluid (Instadapp)
PricingSnapshotSparkLend's stablecoin reserves price off the Sky Savings Rate (SSR) plus a fixed spread up to the kink, and suppliers receive the borrow interest less a 10% reserve factor; there is no deposit or curator fee. The 10 September 2026 spell proposal (https://forum.skyeco.com/t/september-10-2026-proposed-changes-to-spark-for-upcoming-spell/28208, posted 31 August 2026, fetched 28 September 2026) reads the rate on-chain at Ethereum block 25,861,675 (29 August 2026): "getVariableRateSlope1() returns 3.9594644783474038423088%, which equals the SSR of 3.4594644783474038423088% plus the 0.50% spread exactly." For USDT, the largest reserve, it cuts that spread "from 0.005e27 (+0.50%) to 0.001e27 (+0.10%)" and states the effect: "The borrow rate at the kink falls from 3.9595% to 3.5595%" and "At 95% utilisation and a 10% reserve factor that is a supply rate of about 3.04%"; at the time of posting "The live borrow rate is 3.4824% and the live supply rate 2.6186%." The same post gives the other stablecoin curves: "USDC runs a 98% kink with a +1.00% spread". These are SSR-linked and move with every SSR change and with utilisation; they are not a fixed price. The 2 July 2026 SSR figure this note previously carried is superseded.Fluid's guides publish no fee schedule for lenders or borrowers; the costs are the floating rate and, if liquidated, a per-vault liquidation penalty. The Liquidity Layer page (https://fluid.guides.instadapp.io/liquidity-layer/unifying-liquidity, fetched 28 September 2026) states: "Fluid boasts the most advanced liquidation mechanisms, with penalties as low as 0.1%." The live penalties and rates are API fields, not page text: https://api.fluid.instadapp.io/v2/borrowing/1/vaults on 28 September 2026 returned liquidationPenalty 10 basis points (the 0.1% floor) on the wstETH/ETH vault (id 13) and 100 basis points on the ETH/USDC (id 11) and ETH/USDT (id 12) vaults, with borrow rates of 243, 584 and 567 basis points and a vault feeRate of 0 on all three. Rates float with utilisation, so no fixed APY is quoted.
Asset coverageEditorial——
Region fitSnapshotglobalglobal
Custody modelEditorialNon-custodial: no company holds the coinsNon-custodial: no company holds the coins
From the published criteria
Which should you pick?
Spark
80#2 of 8
Leads
Pick it when
Pick Spark if oracle liquidation price matters most — it scores 8/10 to Fluid (Instadapp)'s 6/10 there (weight 32).
Strength
Rate authorship — 10/10
Tradeoff
Read the oracle-type field on your collateral in the app before you post it, and read the liquidity line before you supply. SparkLend does not price every asset at market: 'stablecoins such as USDS and DAI use a fixed price of 1.00 USD, which does not deviate even if the asset's market price moves away from this value' (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend/guides/oracles). If you post USDS or DAI as collateral, a real-world depeg will not move your health factor at all — and the peg-ratio killswitch that exists for exactly this failure covers only 'wstETH, rETH, weETH, cbBTC, WBTC, LBTC', not the fixed-price stablecoins (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend). USDS is issued by Sky, whose governance both sets that $1.00 constant and authors your borrow rate, so the protection and the exposure share a controller. Second, the USDC supply rate you are being shown was deliberately engineered by thinning the withdrawal buffer, and Spark's own risk body said so before the vote: 'At 98% utilization, only about 2% of supplied USDC is immediately available before new deposits, repayments, liquidations, or other liquidity sources are needed. Withdrawals become more fragile', and 'The proposal improves the displayed supply rate by accepting a thinner liquidity buffer' (Spark Risk Council, 2026-06-22, https://forum.skyeco.com/t/july-2-2026-proposed-changes-to-spark-for-upcoming-spell/27982).
Fluid (Instadapp)
73#7 of 8
Pick it when
Fluid (Instadapp) leads Spark on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
Strength
Rate authorship — 8/10
Tradeoff
Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Self-identify in 10 seconds
Which one is actually for you?
SparkLeads
Choose Spark if oracle liquidation price matters most
Oracle liquidation price: 8/10 against 6/10 for Fluid (Instadapp) (weight 32)
Rate authorship: 10/10 against 8/10 for Fluid (Instadapp) (weight 24)
SparkScore 80SparkLend is an Ethereum-only Aave v3 fork run as Sky's in-house money market: prices come from a three-oracle median of RedStone, Chainlink and Chronicle with a Uniswap TWAP as last resort, your deposit is never re-routed by a curator, and the borrow rate is an immutable per-reserve IRM — SSR-anchored on the stablecoin reserves — that Sky governance can only change by redeploying the contract.Strength: Rate authorship — 10/10Watch-out: Read the oracle-type field on your collateral in the app before you post it, and read the liquidity line before you supply. SparkLend does not price every asset at market: 'stablecoins such as USDS and DAI use a fixed price of 1.00 USD, which does not deviate even if the asset's market price moves away from this value' (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend/guides/oracles). If you post USDS or DAI as collateral, a real-world depeg will not move your health factor at all — and the peg-ratio killswitch that exists for exactly this failure covers only 'wstETH, rETH, weETH, cbBTC, WBTC, LBTC', not the fixed-price stablecoins (https://docs.spark.fi/products/sparklend). USDS is issued by Sky, whose governance both sets that $1.00 constant and authors your borrow rate, so the protection and the exposure share a controller. Second, the USDC supply rate you are being shown was deliberately engineered by thinning the withdrawal buffer, and Spark's own risk body said so before the vote: 'At 98% utilization, only about 2% of supplied USDC is immediately available before new deposits, repayments, liquidations, or other liquidity sources are needed. Withdrawals become more fragile', and 'The proposal improves the displayed supply rate by accepting a thinner liquidity buffer' (Spark Risk Council, 2026-06-22, https://forum.skyeco.com/t/july-2-2026-proposed-changes-to-spark-for-upcoming-spell/27982).
Fluid (Instadapp)
Fluid (Instadapp) leads Spark on no published criterion
Choose it only if something outside the published criteria decides for you — your country, a funding rail, or custody.
Fluid (Instadapp)Score 73Shared-liquidity money market where collateral and debt can sit inside a Fluid DEX position; publishes per-vault oracle contract, LTV, liquidation threshold, penalty and absorbed bad debt live via its own API, and disclosed a ~$21M Resolv-driven shortfall (incident 22 Mar 2026) on its governance forum in amounts its own marketing recap then restates as $9.7M and attributes to the wrong payer.Strength: Rate authorship — 8/10Watch-out: Read the Resolv post-mortem on the governance forum, not the recap on the blog — they do not agree, and each omits what the other has. https://gov.fluid.io/t/post-mortem-treasury-actions-and-forward-strategy-following-resolv-incident/1774 (11 May 2026) states 'Fluid incurred ~$21M in bad debt due to the Resolv incident' and splits the remaining ~$19.3M as ~$9.7M Resolv / ~$8.2M Fluid governance treasury / ~$1.5M team, but never dates the event. The H1 2026 recap on fluid.io (5 Aug 2026) dates it — 'On March 22nd, a malicious actor gained unauthorized access to Resolv's signing infrastructure, minting approximately $80M of uncollateralized USR' — then restates the loss as 'The resulting shortfall — about $9.7M, or roughly 10% of total exposure — was covered directly from the DAO treasury.' That figure is Resolv's share presented as the whole loss and attributed to the wrong payer, at under half the number Fluid gave its own DAO. The mechanism that produced it is still the one you are underwriting: Fluid's own risk page says the oracle takes a Uniswap TWAP, runs a 'difference check' against Chainlink and falls back 'If the TWAP is within parameters' without ever stating what those parameters are; 'heartbeat' appears on none of the 46 pages of Fluid's buyer-facing GitBook and only as an unvalued rebalance condition in its autogenerated contract docs; and the one numeric deviation figure Fluid has published — 'revert all operates if deviation > 2%' — is by its own wording operate-only and therefore does not constrain the price that liquidates you.
Criterion by criterion
Scorecard
Published criteria · weight in points of 868 of 8 cells scored. Strength is read from the evidence file; the weight is the published one. Methodology
Oracle liquidation price
by 2 of 10weight 7.7 of 86Spark leads
Spark8/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)6/10 out of 10
Rate authorship
by 2 of 10weight 5.8 of 86Spark leads
Spark10/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)8/10 out of 10
Blast radius
weight 5.8 of 86Tie
Spark8/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)8/10 out of 10
Shortfall record
weight 4.8 of 86Tie
Spark7/10 out of 10
Fluid (Instadapp)7/10 out of 10
Score dimensions
weights sum to 86
The published score is five dimensions, each weighted for the category. "Published criteria" is the criteria block above; the other four are the engine's own terms — availability, friction, trust record, measured data. Each bar is one side's points out of that dimension's maximum; the weight beside the name is its points of the 86-point weighted total. The published criteria above can fill 24 of the block’s 30. A weight marked “constant here” belongs to a dimension every ranked product in the category holds at the same value: it still counts in the total, and it orders nothing here.
Availabilityweight 20 of 86 · constant here
Spark14/20Fluid (Instadapp)14/20
Tie
Published criteriaweight 30 of 86
Spark19.9/30Fluid (Instadapp)17.2/30
Spark leads
Frictionweight 10 of 86 · constant here
Spark2.7/10Fluid (Instadapp)2.7/10
Tie
Trust recordweight 8 of 86 · constant here
Spark3.2/8Fluid (Instadapp)3.2/8
Tie
Measured dataweight 18 of 86 · constant here
Spark8.3/18Fluid (Instadapp)8.3/18
Tie
Decision rulePublished order
Choose Spark unless the term Fluid (Instadapp) leads on is the one you are buying.
Fluid (Instadapp) leads Spark on no published criterion and no score dimension — pick it only if a fact outside the score (country, funding rail, custody) decides for you.
The published order weighs every criterion the same way for everyone. To weigh them your way, run .
From the published order
Next best action
If this isn't your case
Other matchups worth comparing
How you can lose money here, and what the ranking scores
Control failure: a key or vote changes the rules, freezes or mints.
Scored by Who sets your rate — a utilisation curve or a curator? · 24% (Spark 10/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 8/10)
Oracle failure: a wrong price or outcome liquidates or settles a position.
Scored by What price gets you liquidated, and how far can it drift? · 32% (Spark 8/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 6/10)
Insolvency failure: the firm or issuer that owes you cannot pay.
Scored by If one market goes bad, how much of yours goes with it? · 24% (Spark 8/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 8/10)
Scored by Has it lost lender money before, and did it publish it? · 20% (Spark 7/10, Fluid (Instadapp) 7/10)
Not assessed by this ranking: Contract failure, Regulatory failure, Execution failure, Exit failure. A high place says nothing about these; the Methodology tab says what each means.
Questions
Frequently asked questions
Spark scores 7 points above Fluid (Instadapp), led by oracle liquidation price and rate authorship. Published scores, out of 100: Spark 80 (rank 2 of 8 lending & borrowing), Fluid (Instadapp) 73 (rank 7 of 8).
Reviewed means both products compared here was read against its sources on or after that date; every ranked category is re-read at least every 45 days. Models research, extract and parse. A deterministic engine ranks. Every quote passes an adversarial refute pass.
Answer a few quick questions and get one clear recommendation based on how you actually plan to use crypto — with rationale, tradeoffs, and a path to monitor the decision.
No signup·Free first pass · Private·No spam · No account
Not financial advice · Independent · Always do your own research
Not financial advice · For informational purposes only · Always do your own research
