Best Bitcoin and crypto lending platforms
The lenders below span custodial CeFi platforms, non-custodial peer-to-peer marketplaces, and DeFi protocols, each listing custody model, rate/APR range, maximum LTV, and liquidation terms at a glance.
Try the Bitcoin loan calculator to model a loan against your own BTC before comparing the platforms below.
CeFi vs DeFi Bitcoin lending platforms
Centralized finance (CeFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi) Bitcoin lending platforms differ most in who holds your collateral. A CeFi lender takes custody of your BTC directly, the way a bank holds a deposit. A DeFi protocol locks collateral inside an audited smart contract you access through your own wallet.
DeFi collateral sits in code, not a company’s balance sheet, trading CeFi’s hidden-leverage risk for smart-contract risk instead.
A handful of other differences matter when choosing between the two models:
- KYC and identity verification: nearly every CeFi lender requires it; most DeFi protocols leave it optional or skip it.
- Loan currency: CeFi platforms typically issue fiat or stablecoins; DeFi protocols issue stablecoins only.
- Rehypothecation: possible under some CeFi agreements unless the contract explicitly forbids it; not applicable to DeFi, where collateral sits in an isolated smart contract instead of a lender’s balance sheet.
- Regulatory recourse: CeFi lenders typically operate under a license, such as a state money-transmitter registration, giving borrowers a legal address to pursue if something goes wrong. Most DeFi protocols carry no equivalent license, since code executes the loan instead of a company.
Risks of CeFi Bitcoin lending platforms
CeFi custody risk is not hypothetical. Celsius Network and BlockFi deployed customer BTC into risky, under-collateralized positions and filed for bankruptcy when markets fell. A January 2023 US Bankruptcy Court ruling held that Celsius’s Earn Accounts, roughly $4.2 billion, belonged to the bankruptcy estate, not depositors, leaving about 600,000 account holders as unsecured creditors.
FTX went further, secretly transferring customer deposits to cover trading losses before its own collapse. A CeFi lender’s custody promise is only as strong as its balance sheet, a risk backed by real legal precedent, not just a hypothetical.
Risks of DeFi Bitcoin lending platforms
The DeFi lending space is full of unaudited, thin-liquidity protocols chasing yield, and a hacked or exploited contract can lose funds as permanently as a CeFi bankruptcy. Cumulative DeFi hack losses reached $840 million across more than 50 incidents in the first five months of 2026, a 70% year-over-year increase.
Two incidents in April 2026 accounted for 95% of that month’s $614 million in DeFi-specific losses. Even Aave and Morpho, two of the three protocols profiled here, were touched by 2026 incidents that originated in third-party bridges, not their own contracts. Stick to protocols with a long audit history and real adoption, and treat any platform promising outsized yield with the same skepticism you’d apply to an unregulated CeFi lender.
What to look for in a Bitcoin lending platform
Compare platforms on four factors before you borrow:
- Custody model: who can move your BTC while the loan is outstanding, whether a custodial lender, a collaborative-custody/multisig setup, or a DeFi smart contract.
- Rate and APR range: the loan’s advertised cost. Weigh it alongside LTV caps, fees, and rehypothecation policy rather than in isolation.
- Maximum loan-to-value (LTV): the percentage of your collateral’s value a lender will issue as a loan. A lower max LTV leaves more buffer before a margin call; a higher one maximizes borrowing power. This isn’t financial advice.
- Liquidation and margin-call terms: what happens when Bitcoin’s price falls toward a lender’s threshold, typically a 24- to 72-hour window to add collateral or repay before a force-sell.
Rehypothecation and platform insolvency, covered above, cut across all four factors and rarely show up in a platform’s advertised rate.
How Bitcoin-backed loans are taxed
Borrowing against Bitcoin is not a taxable event in most jurisdictions, including the US, since pledging BTC as collateral doesn’t dispose of it. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) classifies digital assets as property, not currency, so posting collateral generates no capital gain.
One exception applies across every platform in this roster. If a lender liquidates your BTC collateral following a margin call, that forced sale is a taxable disposition, generating a gain or loss on any appreciation since you acquired the bitcoin. Tax treatment varies by country and by your own holding period, but the mechanic holds across CeFi and DeFi alike: a loan doesn’t trigger tax, a forced liquidation does.
The Bitcoin loans explained guide covers how that liquidation event is calculated and reported. This isn’t tax advice; confirm your specific treatment with a tax professional before borrowing.
Ledn
Pros
- No monthly payments required over the loan term.
- Publishes regular proof-of-reserves.
Cons
- Accepts BTC only as collateral, no other assets.
- Discontinued its yield-bearing Earn product on holdings.
Key facts
An explicit no-rehypothecation claim: collateral is "held securely in custody with Ledn or our trusted partners," never lent out to earn interest. Rate tier boundaries have shifted recently, so confirm the current bracket before applying. Reviewers cite Ledn's transparency and fast support, and its record of never losing customer funds through the FTX-era collapses stands out as a trust signal.
Coinbase Borrow
Pros
- Rate among the lowest of any CeFi platform in this roster.
- Loan sizes reportedly expanding, from an early cap near $100,000 toward $1 million per 2026 statements.
- Direct integration for anyone already holding BTC on Coinbase.
Cons
- Loan-size ceiling has been reported inconsistently as the product scales.
- Coinbase carries an F rating from the Better Business Bureau (BBB) at the company level.
Key facts
BTC leaves your Coinbase account, converts 1:1 to cbBTC, and moves into a Morpho smart contract on Base, where your own wallet governs the loan from then on. The BBB dissatisfaction concentrates on account access and fund holds, worth weighing since the same account governs your collateral. This is a Morpho-powered relaunch from January 2025, distinct from the differently structured Coinbase Borrow that ran 2019–2023.
Strike
Pros
- Zero origination, prepayment, closure, or liquidation fees on the standard loan.
- A volatility-proof option removes price-triggered liquidation risk entirely.
- The revolving line of credit variant allows draws as small as $1.
Cons
- Available in select US states only, not nationwide.
- The same entity custodies both loan collateral and Strike's broader exchange holdings.
- The volatility-proof product trades a wider upfront rate for removing liquidation risk, not a free upgrade.
Key facts
An explicit no-further-rehypothecation claim: "bitcoin is never lent out." The volatility-proof variant caps at 45% LTV, runs up to 14.2% APR on a 6-month term, and swaps price-triggered margin calls for a missed-payment trigger only. Strike's own pages return errors to direct verification tools, so confirm live numbers against 2026 news coverage before applying. Reviewers rate Strike among the better Bitcoin-only platforms for low fees and support, though recurring complaints about account lockdowns and blocked fund access tie to Strike's broader custodial practices.
Figure
Pros
- Higher max LTV (75%) than most CeFi peers in this roster.
- An optional paid Liquidation Protection add-on for extra buffer.
Cons
- A 1% origination fee is baked into the APR.
- Restricted in 10 US states.
Key facts
Custody uses decentralized MPC (multi-party computation): Figure's own announcement describes multi-party approval required for every movement, eliminating a central custodian while users retain control, and states collateral "will never be rehypothecated." Figure's own page discloses that rates "change frequently," so treat these as illustrative. Figure Markets, which originates the loans through Figure Lending LLC, adds detail beyond the headline thresholds: a notification at 65% LTV, a 24-hour cure window to add collateral or repay, and liquidation that restores the position to a 55% LTV target plus a 2% fee. Reviewers praise Figure's customer service and disbursement speed; BBB feedback flags over-reliance on automated handling of sensitive data and at least one slow follow-up case.
SALT Lending
Pros
- A precisely staged liquidation ladder disclosed directly on SALT's own site.
- No separate origination fee, since the APR is fee-inclusive.
- Funds typically arrive within 72 hours of approval.
Cons
- No phone support, only AI chat and email.
- Collateral stays locked for the full loan term, 1, 3, or 5 years.
Key facts
SALT names Fireblocks as its custody partner, secured with MPC and Intel SGX, plus its own cyber insurance — an upgrade from SALT's earlier self-custody model. The liquidation process is unusually granular: a warning at 75% LTV and a final notice at 88%, bracketing the standard margin-call and liquidation thresholds. A Stabilization feature can convert collateral to stablecoin instead of a straight sale. Reviewers cite quick approval and a track record weathering the FTX collapse, offset by complaints about app friction — but the disclosed custody partner and detailed liquidation ladder are genuine trust advantages over peers that describe both only qualitatively.
Arch Lending
Pros
- A named, federally chartered custodian (Anchorage Digital) plus $100 million in insurance.
- Can upsize an existing loan without opening a new one.
- No early-repayment fee.
Cons
- Collateral limited to BTC, ETH, SOL, and XRP — no other assets accepted.
- Unavailable in 11 US states, plus DC for business borrowers.
- The 80% liquidation threshold sits only 10 points above the 70% margin call, so there's a narrow buffer once it hits.
Key facts
Arch states, "We never lend out your crypto," with the insurance backing underwritten by Lloyd's of London. Threshold specifics vary by asset — ETH and SOL/XRP run lower than BTC's figures above — with a 24-hour cure window to add collateral, partially repay, or request liquidation. Trustpilot shows close to 5 stars across 476 reviews, with reviewers citing fast funding and direct communication with Arch's CEO — among the strongest sentiment reads in this roster.
Unchained
Pros
- A third-party co-signer arrangement is cited by one reviewer as an added fail-safe.
- Funding arrives in as little as two business days.
Cons
- Now scoped to commercial and institutional borrowers only, with a $150,000 minimum.
- No current numeric liquidation trigger published.
- Available to US borrowers only.
Key facts
Custody is a 2-of-3 multisig arrangement: the borrower's entity holds one key, Unchained holds one, and Fortis Bank holds the third. Older secondary sources cite a margin call at 67% LTV and liquidation at 83%, but those figures may predate a recent business-model shift, so verify directly. Reviews are thin and mixed — Trustpilot near 3.2/5 against a separately cited 5.0/5 Google rating, both small samples — though reviewers praise Unchained's clarity explaining multisig mechanics. The shift to commercial-only lending matters most for anyone expecting the smaller individual loans older sources still describe; that older $10,000 minimum is outdated against Unchained's current terms.
Nexo
Pros
- A revolving credit line with no fixed repayment term.
- Borrowing limits up to $2 million per day for individuals.
- A Trustpilot rating in the 4.3–4.5/5 range across a large review volume.
Cons
- Best rates require holding a volatile native token (NEXO), an added risk layer on top of the loan.
- An EU Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) license remains pending as of mid-2026.
- A 2023 US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) settlement of $45 million over an unregistered retail product remains part of its history.
Key facts
Custody isn't detailed on Nexo's own borrowing page — secondary sources reference Ledger and Fireblocks partnerships and SOC 2 Type 2 certification, a first-party gap rather than an omission on our part. Rates are loyalty-tier-gated (Base, Silver, Gold, Platinum, based on NEXO holdings), so "as low as 1.9%" is a top-tier promotional figure; standard tiers run materially higher. Sentiment is generally positive at scale, with users citing no history of paused withdrawals or hacks and Nexo replying to 99% of negative reviews within 24 hours. Nexo's EU MiCA license status is time-sensitive — confirm it's been granted before relying on this section.
Firefish
Pros
- 5 stars across 150 Trustpilot reviews, among the strongest sentiment reads in this roster.
- Collateral returned immediately on repayment, per reviewers.
- Discloses a fixed 95% LTV liquidation threshold platform-wide, with alert emails as early as 73% LTV.
Cons
- The marketplace-dependent rate means the real number only appears once a loan is matched.
- Fixed durations of 3 to 24 months, with full repayment due at term end rather than monthly installments.
Key facts
Collateral sits in a dedicated multisig escrow per loan on Bitcoin mainnet; Firefish holds no private keys. It's a peer-to-peer marketplace matching individual lenders to borrowers, not a pooled lending book. "Rates from 5%" is a marketing floor, plus a 1.5% per annum origination fee disclosed separately. The only recurring complaint is a wish for faster order matching, an inherent trade-off of the peer-to-peer model rather than a platform failure.
HodlHodl
Pros
- Non-custodial multisig escrow, structurally similar to Firefish's model.
- Accepts a wider range of borrowable assets against BTC collateral, including USDT, USDC, L-BTC, and WBTC.
- Operating since 2018 through multiple bear markets with no reported platform-level incident.
Cons
- A Trustpilot rating near 3.4/5 (26 reviews), the weakest sentiment read among the CeFi and P2P platforms in this roster.
- No jurisdiction of incorporation, licensing, or regulatory registration was found; HodlHodl operates without government regulation.
- Liquidation mechanics vary loan to loan rather than following one published rule.
Key facts
HodlHodl states it "never holds user funds"; each loan uses a 2-of-3 multisig escrow between borrower, lender, and HodlHodl. Borrower and lender each set their own rate, LTV, and duration per listed offer — an order-book-style marketplace rather than a lender-set schedule. Experienced users report fast, repeat, successful transactions, but a documented complaint pattern includes unresponsive support and at least one report of a first-time user losing bitcoin after paying without escrow protection. The peer-to-peer, unregulated structure rewards users who already understand the escrow model.
APX Lending
Pros
- The only Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA)-approved crypto lender in Canada, per its own materials.
- Registered with FINTRAC in Canada and FinCEN in the US, with Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) exemptive relief enabling nationwide USDC loans.
- $250 million in insurance and live, 24/7 proof-of-custody.
- Discloses an 80% LTV soft margin call, with 6-hourly alerts, well ahead of its 90% LTV forced-liquidation threshold.
Cons
- Independent review coverage is thin compared to the more established platforms in this roster.
- The fixed APR floor sits above the lowest rates available elsewhere in this roster.
Key facts
Cold-storage, segregated custody through qualified third-party custodians, with an explicit no-rehypothecation claim. No independent sentiment digest surfaced for APX beyond its own regulatory and product claims, making it a newer, less-reviewed entrant worth confirming directly rather than a platform with an established track record of user sentiment either way.
Aave
Pros
- The leading DeFi lending protocol by total value locked; the WBTC market alone held $2.04 billion supplied at the time of this research.
- Multiple third-party audits and a continuous bug bounty program.
Cons
- Max LTV and liquidation threshold aren't exposed as a static figure on Aave's own live dashboard.
- A 2026 bridge-related incident, tied to an integration outside Aave's direct control, created bad debt exposure for the protocol.
Key facts
WBTC on Aave V3 Ethereum floats continuously — a point-in-time, block-by-block figure that requires a live check before acting, same as the LTV and liquidation thresholds. The April 2026 incident traced to a forged cross-chain message, an estimated $230 million impact, shows that even a rigorously audited protocol carries systemic risk from integrations it doesn't directly control.
Compound
Pros
- Audited by Trail of Bits, OpenZeppelin, and ChainSecurity, and formally verified by Certora.
- Bug bounty payouts of up to $150,000.
- No 2025–2026 exploit directly implicating Compound's own contracts has surfaced to date.
Cons
- Live rate and LTV figures aren't reliably confirmable through public tools without checking the app directly.
- Thinner qualitative product detail than the CeFi platforms in this roster.
Key facts
A recurring but weakly sourced estimate of around 85% collateral factor for WBTC appears across secondary sources; Compound's own documentation presents that figure as illustrative rather than an asserted live parameter — worth confirming directly given how thin public tooling is here. Reviewers describe Compound as among the most trusted DeFi protocols, a favorable contrast to Aave's and Morpho's ecosystem-adjacent 2026 incidents.
Morpho
Pros
- Powers Coinbase's current Bitcoin-backed loan product, with over $3 billion in peak total value locked.
- More than 25 third-party audits.
- A minimal core contract design, about 650 lines, intended to reduce attack surface.
Cons
- Backed by a16z and Coinbase Ventures, both of which hold a commercial stake in Morpho's own protocol.
- Parameters vary by market and curator, so no single protocol-wide figure applies.
- A third-party aggregator scores Morpho's Trust Score at 63 out of 100, not top-tier by every measure.
Key facts
Morpho uses isolated lending markets — one collateral asset paired to one loan asset per market — confining potential losses to a single market. The Coinbase-integrated cbBTC market specifically runs a 133% minimum collateral ratio, the basis for the LTV and liquidation figures above, plus a ~4.38% liquidation penalty; other cbBTC and WBTC markets carry different, curator-set parameters. The April 2026 incident tied to a $292 million exploit ran through a third-party integration, not a direct Morpho contract exploit — it illustrates the curator and integration risk layered on top of Morpho's own modular design.