DeFi • Real-World Assets • Climate Infrastructure
Onchain Lending Could Fund Solar, Storage, and Robotics — Here’s What Aave’s Stani Kulechov Is Really Arguing
Aave Labs CEO Stani Kulechov says onchain lending can put money behind “future-proof” assets—especially solar, energy storage, and robotics—by turning them into collateral that can move faster than traditional finance.
What you’ll get from this article
- A plain-English definition of “onchain lending” and why “collateral hunger” matters.
- A practical mental model for how tokenized solar (and storage) could accelerate project development.
- A reality check on what has to be true (legally, operationally, and regulatorily) for this to scale.
- A watchlist of signals that tell you whether this is becoming real—or staying a thought experiment.
What Kulechov said—and why it’s getting attention
Stani Kulechov—founder of Aave and CEO of Aave Labs—has been framing a deceptively simple proposition: onchain lending can accelerate real-world development (solar, energy storage, robotics) by channeling capital toward what he calls “future-proof” assets. In his telling, the bottleneck is not imagination—it’s financing speed and collateral efficiency.
The argument shows up in a broader “abundance assets” thesis: assets tied to the long-run expansion of energy generation, energy flexibility, and productive automation. Think of them as the opposite of scarcity trades. Scarcity assets can be durable stores of value, but Kulechov’s point is that abundance-linked assets can be economically generative—they produce measurable cashflows and, crucially, can be structured as collateral for credit.
The part that turns heads is the mechanism: tokenize the asset or its cashflows, then use onchain lending markets to borrow against it, recycle capital faster, and make the same dollar “work” multiple times rather than being locked for decades. In other words: the thesis isn’t “DeFi is cool”; it’s “credit is the engine, collateral is the fuel, and blockchains can reduce friction.”
A crucial framing
This is not a claim that DeFi replaces project finance overnight. It’s a claim that onchain rails could make certain infrastructure credit products more liquid, more transparent, and easier to compose—if the legal and operational wrappers are real.
The one-sentence definition (and the longer one)
One-sentence definition
Onchain lending is a way to borrow and lend using smart contracts, where loans are typically over-collateralized and settled programmatically.
The longer, practical definition
Onchain lending markets (like Aave) are automated money markets. Suppliers deposit assets (often stablecoins), borrowers post collateral, and interest rates move based on utilization. Liquidations are enforced by code when collateral value falls too far. The “magic” is not magic—it’s automation + transparency + composability.
For crypto-native assets, the system is self-contained: collateral, price feeds, liquidation incentives, and settlement all happen onchain. For real-world assets (RWAs)—like solar projects—everything depends on how you connect offchain reality to onchain enforcement: legal rights, cashflow routing, custody, audits, insurance, servicing, and credible price discovery.
So when you hear “tokenized solar as collateral,” translate it into a checklist: What exactly is tokenized (equity, debt, receivables, revenue share)? Who enforces claims? How are cashflows verified? How is default handled? If those answers are strong, onchain lending becomes an efficiency layer. If not, it becomes a storyline.
“Capital is hungry for collateral”: what that means
Credit markets scale when lenders can rely on collateral quality, enforcement, and pricing. Kulechov’s “collateral hunger” framing is basically this: there is more deployable capital than there is clean, financeable collateral that can absorb it quickly, especially for the next wave of electrification and automation.
In energy, the macro numbers are enormous. Global energy investment has been running in the trillions annually, with clean energy taking a growing share. The infrastructure buildout is not just solar panels; it’s grids, storage, flexibility, and industrial electrification. Meanwhile, electricity demand growth is putting pressure on grids and flexibility resources, which itself creates financing demand.
Kulechov’s bet is that a big chunk of “future-proof collateral” is being created in the physical world—solar farms, battery fleets, robotics deployments— but our financial plumbing isn’t optimized for speed, transparency, and capital recycling. Tokenization, in his view, makes those assets more legible to credit markets, and onchain lending provides the programmable credit layer.
To keep this grounded: onchain lending is already large in crypto terms. Aave, for example, is consistently among the largest DeFi lending protocols by TVL. That matters because it shows there’s a mature onchain credit primitive—liquidity pools, risk parameters, liquidation infrastructure—ready to be repurposed, provided the RWA side is structured correctly.
Why solar is the flagship example
Solar is a clean entry point for a tokenized collateral thesis because it has a few traits lenders love: predictable generation profiles (imperfect but modelable), standardized equipment, established EPC ecosystems, and revenue contracts that can be audited (PPAs, merchant + hedge structures, behind-the-meter agreements).
In many markets, solar project finance is already a machine: equity + construction debt + term debt, wrapped in SPVs with contract waterfalls. The pain point is that it’s often slow, intermediated, documentation-heavy, and liquidity is uneven. Smaller developers face higher cost of capital. Funds face long lockups. Secondary markets exist, but frictions remain.
Tokenization enters as a way to make slices of project exposure easier to hold, value, and transfer. If that transferability becomes real, it does two things: (1) it expands the investor base (not only banks/funds), and (2) it accelerates recycling—capital returns to developers sooner, allowing them to start the next build.
The “capital velocity” intuition
Traditional infrastructure capital can be “patient,” but it can also be sticky. If a structure locks money for 10–20 years, development speed depends on how quickly you can raise new pools. If a structure lets early financiers exit after (say) 2–4 years, while long-term holders step in seamlessly, the same initial money can fund more projects over a decade.
Mini tool: a simple capital recycling estimator
This is not a forecast. It’s a mechanical illustration of the idea Kulechov is pointing at: shorter hold periods can increase how many times a pool of capital gets redeployed.
The tool above is intentionally conservative and simplistic. Real projects involve construction timelines, refinancing windows, covenants, DSCR targets, hedging, curtailment risk, insurance, and regulatory regimes. But the core intuition is durable: if you make credible collateral transferable and settle credit faster, you increase capital velocity.
How tokenized infrastructure lending would work in practice
If you strip the hype out, the real question is: Can you build an end-to-end credit product where the token actually represents enforceable rights, and where cashflows can service onchain debt? If yes, onchain lending becomes a distribution and automation layer. If no, it’s a brittle wrapper.
A plausible blueprint (high level)
- SPV formation and contract stack. A project lives in a bankruptcy-remote SPV with clear ownership, liens, insurance, and contractual claims (PPA/merchant structure, O&M, warranties).
- Define the token claim. The token should represent something enforceable: equity, senior debt, mezzanine debt, receivables, or a revenue share with legal recourse.
- Cashflow routing with auditability. Payments (from offtakers, power markets, or counterparties) route through controlled accounts with reporting, audits, and monitoring.
- Onchain representation and disclosures. Tokens are issued with standardized disclosures: asset specs, geography, permits, counterparty risk, insurance, and performance history.
- Risk parameters for lending. A lending market sets conservative haircuts and LTVs, plus liquidation rules. For RWAs, “liquidation” often means offchain enforcement: step-in rights, collateral sale, or structured buyouts.
- Servicing and governance. A servicer monitors the asset, a trustee or agent manages enforcement, and governance controls upgrades, reporting, and dispute resolution.
Notice what’s missing: “trust me, it’s onchain.” The blueprint is mostly traditional finance discipline—SPVs, covenants, servicing, audits— with onchain rails handling distribution, settlement, and programmable credit logic.
Where DeFi primitives help (when the wrapper is real)
- Transparent positions: lenders can see collateralization and utilization in real time.
- Automation: interest, repayments, and risk rules can be enforced programmatically.
- Composability: a tokenized solar credit product could plug into other onchain markets (hedges, liquidity, structured vaults).
- Global distribution: access expands beyond a narrow set of intermediaries—subject to compliance constraints.
Compliance note
The “global distribution” point only holds if KYC/AML, investor eligibility, and jurisdictional rules are built into the product. Tokenization doesn’t delete securities law; it changes how products are issued and serviced.
Energy storage: where the financing pain is acute
If solar is generation, storage is flexibility. And flexibility is quickly becoming the limiting factor in many grids. Storage economics vary by market (ancillary services, capacity payments, arbitrage, congestion management, behind-the-meter savings), but the recurring theme is that revenue stacks can be complex and policy-sensitive.
Financing complexity often translates into higher cost of capital. Lenders want clarity on warranties, degradation curves, dispatch rights, and contract structures (tolling agreements, availability guarantees, merchant exposure with hedges). Investors worry about regulatory redesign of market rules. Developers deal with interconnection queues and curtailment risk.
This is precisely where “future-proof collateral” becomes a meaningful phrase—if the asset underpins grid reliability, its strategic value rises as electricity demand rises. But strategic value isn’t the same as bankability. The bridge is credible underwriting + enforceable claims.
How tokenization could help storage specifically
Storage projects can be modular. They can be built in fleets. They can be repowered or upgraded. Tokenized structures could, in theory, make it easier to: (1) finance standardized project “units,” (2) aggregate performance data transparently, and (3) create secondary liquidity earlier in the project life cycle.
The most realistic near-term path is not “retail buys battery tokens.” It’s institutional-grade products: tokenized credit instruments or fund shares, settled faster, with better reporting and interoperability. That direction is already visible across broader tokenization experiments in capital markets.
Robotics: the “productive asset” angle most people miss
Solar and storage feel intuitive: they’re physical infrastructure tied to energy transition narratives. Robotics sounds different—but it fits the same collateral logic if you think in terms of productive assets.
A robot deployed in logistics, manufacturing, agriculture, or services is not just a gadget. In many business models, it’s closer to an income-producing asset: it reduces labor cost, increases throughput, and generates contractual revenue via “robotics-as-a-service” (RaaS) or leasing structures. That makes it underwritable—at least in principle.
Kulechov’s framing links robotics to “future-proof” because automation demand tends to rise when labor scarcity, wage pressure, and productivity requirements rise. Again: future-proof isn’t moral. It’s structural.
What tokenized robotics collateral could look like
- Lease receivables: tokenized claims on contracted payments from customers.
- Asset-backed notes: debt secured by equipment + insurance + servicing contracts.
- Fleet performance pools: diversified baskets of robotics deployments to smooth single-customer risk.
The big challenge is enforceability and monitoring. A solar farm doesn’t walk away. A robot can be moved, damaged, or become obsolete faster. That pushes underwriting toward strong servicing, insurance, and telemetry—plus legal mechanisms for repossession and contract enforcement. If those pieces exist, robotics becomes a cousin of equipment finance—just with better data.
Geography: where this thesis could hit first
“Onchain lending funds solar” will not roll out evenly. The speed depends on regulation, grid market design, contract enforceability, and the maturity of capital markets. But a few geographic patterns are worth watching.
1) Markets scaling renewables aggressively
High build rates create a steady pipeline of financeable projects—and a constant need to refinance and recycle capital. For example, China’s renewables buildout has reached a scale where clean capacity has surpassed fossil capacity, underscoring how fast capital and supply chains can move when policy and industry align.
2) Emerging economies with massive investment requirements
Emerging economies often face a double constraint: huge demand growth and a higher cost of capital. India’s own official scenario work highlights power-sector investment needs that run into the tens of trillions of dollars through 2070, spanning generation, storage, and transmission & distribution.
3) Financial centers experimenting with tokenized securities
Tokenization becomes more plausible when mainstream market infrastructure supports it: digital bond issuance pilots, interoperable settlement layers, and clear supervisory approaches. There has been increasing movement in this direction (including sovereign and market-infrastructure experimentation) that can make “tokenized collateral” less exotic over time.
The most likely first wins are regulated tokenized instruments (bonds, notes, fund shares) where the underlying is real, reporting is audited, and onchain settlement reduces friction. Permissionless DeFi integrations may come later, or exist as parallel markets, but serious infrastructure finance tends to demand serious legal wrappers.
Risks, failure modes, and the unglamorous stuff
If you want a serious take, you have to talk about what can break. Tokenization and onchain lending can reduce some frictions, but they also introduce new ones.
1) Legal enforceability risk
If a token doesn’t map cleanly to enforceable legal rights—especially in default—then the “collateral” is cosmetic. Bankruptcy remoteness, lien priority, and dispute resolution must be explicit, jurisdictional, and tested.
2) Oracle and valuation risk
Crypto markets have real-time price feeds. Solar projects do not. Valuation can be model-based, appraisal-based, or cashflow-based—and may update monthly or quarterly, not every second. That’s fine, but it changes liquidation design. You can’t pretend physical infrastructure behaves like liquid tokens.
3) Liquidity illusion
Secondary liquidity is not guaranteed by “being onchain.” Liquidity is a market structure problem: market makers, buyer depth, information symmetry, and trust in disclosures. If liquidity is thin, forced selling can become destabilizing.
4) Stablecoin and settlement risk
A lot of onchain lending runs on stablecoins. Stablecoin structures can be robust, but they are not identical: reserve quality, redemption mechanics, and regulation differ. Large-scale RWA lending would likely require conservative settlement assets and clear supervisory comfort.
5) Regulatory and policy risk
Tokenization is attracting more formal regulatory attention, including cross-border oversight concerns. If jurisdictions tighten rules around tokenized asset issuance, that can slow or reshape the market. The direction of travel is toward compliance-heavy tokenization rather than a free-for-all.
Not financial advice
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment, legal, or financial advice. Real-world asset credit products involve complex risks that require professional due diligence.
What to watch next (a serious checklist)
If you want to know whether this thesis is becoming real, ignore vibes and watch implementation signals. Here are the indicators that matter.
A. Product reality
- Which claim is tokenized? Equity, debt, receivables, or revenue share—and what are the enforcement mechanics?
- Who services the asset? Named servicers, trustees, auditors, insurers—plus reporting cadence and historical performance.
- How are cashflows routed? Controlled accounts, audited statements, and clear waterfall logic.
B. Risk discipline
- Conservative LTVs and haircuts that reflect infrastructure illiquidity and valuation cadence.
- Default playbooks that explain exactly what happens offchain if covenants are breached.
- Stress testing for curtailment, counterparty default, policy changes, and interest rate shocks.
C. Market infrastructure
- Regulated tokenized securities pilots (digital bonds, onchain settlement layers, interoperability with legacy systems).
- Clear supervisory frameworks for tokenized asset issuance and stablecoin settlement.
- Credible secondary venues with transparency and consistent disclosures.
D. Growth metrics that actually matter
Market dashboards for tokenized RWAs can show whether issuance is scaling beyond experiments. If real-world asset value onchain keeps rising and the mix diversifies beyond short-duration instruments, that’s a meaningful signal that tokenization is maturing.
Bottom line: Kulechov’s argument is plausible as a direction, but the difference between a thesis and a market is operational truth. If you see serious wrappers, conservative underwriting, and regulated market infrastructure moving in tandem, the “onchain lending funds solar/storage/robotics” story gets teeth.
FAQ
Isn’t DeFi lending mostly over-collateralized and therefore not useful for project finance?
Crypto-native DeFi lending is typically over-collateralized. For infrastructure, the “collateral” is the asset claim itself, which can be structured in ways that resemble traditional secured lending (with conservative advance rates). The practical point is not “infinite leverage,” but better distribution, automation, and liquidity options for eligible claims.
What does “future-proof” mean in this context?
In Kulechov’s framing, “future-proof” assets are those aligned with structural demand: electrification (solar), flexibility (storage), and productivity (robotics). The phrase is directional, not a guarantee. Bankability still depends on contracts, enforcement, and risk allocation.
Does tokenization automatically create liquidity?
No. Tokenization can reduce settlement friction and improve transparency, but liquidity requires market structure: buyers, sellers, disclosures, and trusted enforcement. Tokenization can help a market form; it does not guarantee depth.
What’s the most realistic near-term version of this thesis?
Regulated tokenized instruments (notes, bonds, fund shares) tied to infrastructure exposures, where onchain settlement improves operational efficiency. Permissionless DeFi integrations may grow around the edges, but serious capital usually demands serious compliance and servicing.
Why mention robotics alongside solar and storage?
Because robotics can be modeled as an income-producing asset via leases and service contracts. If claims are enforceable and performance data is reliable, it fits the same “productive collateral” lens—just with different risks.
Sources & further reading
Links open in a new tab. These are the core references used to ground the claims and provide context.
- Cointelegraph (via TradingView): “Aave founder pitches $50T ‘abundance asset’ boom to drive DeFi” — Read
- DeFiLlama: Aave protocol page (TVL / lending metrics) — Read
- RWA.xyz: Real-world asset dashboards / market overview — Read
- IEA: World Energy Investment 2025 (executive summary) — Read
- IEA: “Global electricity demand is set to grow strongly to 2030…” (grids & flexibility investment) — Read
- IEA: Electricity Grids and Secure Energy Transitions (executive summary) — Read
- BIS/CPMI: “Tokenisation in the context of money and other assets” (report) — Read
- FSB: “The Financial Stability Implications of Tokenisation” (report) — Read
- NITI Aayog (Government of India): “Scenarios Towards Viksit Bharat and Net Zero — Sectoral Insights: Power” (investment requirements) — Read
- Reuters: tokenised bond and settlement infrastructure developments (context on market direction) — Read and Read
- Reuters: tokenised ABS oversight tightening (regulatory context) — Read