Crypto Gloss

Tarot Finance

Tarot Finance is a multi-chain decentralized protocol enabling leveraged LP farming through isolated lending pools — allowing liquidity providers to borrow additional assets against their LP token positions to amplify farming yields (up to 5× leverage), while lenders deposit single assets into isolated token pools to earn yield from borrowers, using a “Tarot-specific” architecture where each LP token has a completely isolated lending market to prevent cross-contamination of risk.

Overview

Tarot Finance launched on Fantom Opera in 2021, addressing a specific DeFi need: amplifying LP farming returns via leverage. While Cream Finance and other multi-asset lending protocols support LP tokens as collateral, Tarot built the entire protocol around LP-centric borrowing — every lending pool is isolated to one specific LP token’s underlying assets.

This isolation design (borrowed from Kashi by SushiSwap) means a bad pool (e.g., a new DeFi token’s LP) cannot infect other pools — a critical safety innovation given Tarot’s expansion to cover hundreds of LP tokens across multiple chains.

Core Architecture

The protocol is built around the following components.

Isolated Lending Pools

Each Tarot pool corresponds to one specific LP token and has two isolated lending vaults:

  • One vault for Token A (e.g., USDC vault for USDC/FTM pool)
  • One vault for Token B (e.g., FTM vault for USDC/FTM pool)
  • LP token: accepted ONLY in this pool (not used as collateral system-wide)
  • Isolation: if USDC/FTM pool has bad debt → WBTC/ETH pool completely unaffected

Lending Side

Lenders deposit single assets into Tarot vaults:

  • Example: lend USDC into the USDC vault of USDC/FTM pool
  • Receive: tUSDC (Tarot receipt token) = interest-earning position
  • Yield: borrow interest from LP borrowers who borrow USDC from this vault
  • Risk: isolated to that specific pool (if LP borrowers default in this pool only, lenders in this pool harmed; other pools safe)

Borrowing Side (Leveraged LP)

LPs can leverage their farming positions:

  1. User provides initial LP tokens (e.g., 1 USDC/FTM LP worth $100)
  2. Tarot borrows additional USDC and FTM from lending vaults on user’s behalf
  3. Protocol combines initial LP + borrowed assets → adds more LP
  4. Higher LP → higher farming rewards (SPIRIT, BEETS, VELO, etc.)
  5. Leverage: up to 5× (if both lend vaults have sufficient liquidity)
  6. Liquidation: if LP position value falls below borrowed amount → liquidation

Leverage Mechanics

The following sections cover this in detail.

Leverage Calculation

“`

Leverage = (Total LP Value) / (Initial Equity)

At 2× leverage:

Initial: $100 equity in USDC/FTM LP

Borrow: $100 additional (50% USDC + 50% FTM from vaults)

Total LP: $200

Farm APY on $200 vs equity of $100 = 2× farm APY baseline

At 5× max leverage:

Initial: $100

Borrow: $400 (50% each token)

Total LP: $500

Farm APY applied to $500/equity $100 = 5× baseline APY

“`

Liquidation

Liquidation triggers when:

  • Debt > Threshold × LP value (where Threshold ≈ 0.9 for most pools)
  • As LP price declines (either from IL, or from price falls): debt-to-LP ratio rises
  • Liquidator: calls liquidate() → repays part of debt → receives LP collateral + discount
  • Leveraged LP risk concentrator: at 5× leverage, a 20% drop in LP value causes the same collateral impact as a 100% drop at 1× → much higher liquidation risk

Chain Expansion

Tarot launched on Fantom and expanded to multiple chains as DeFi migrated:

  • Fantom: original chain; SpiritSwap, SpookySwap, Beethoven X LP pools
  • Optimism: Velodrome Finance LP pools (major use case; ve(3,3) LP tokens)
  • Arbitrum: Camelot, SushiSwap LP pools
  • Base: Aerodrome Finance LP pools (Velodrome fork on Base)
  • Multi-chain: Tarot integrated with each chain’s dominant DEX LC pools as they gained traction

Velodrome Integration (Optimism)

One of Tarot’s most significant partnerships:

  • Velodrome (Optimism’s dominant ve(3,3) DEX): LPs earn VELO emissions
  • Tarot borrowed USDC/ETH/OP to amplify LP positions → collect more VELO
  • VELO farming at 5× leverage: LP farmers earned 5× normal VELO APY (subject to liquidation risk from price moves)
  • Tarot TVL on Optimism: grew from 0 to $30-50M during Velodrome’s 2022 expansion

TAROT Token

  • Supply: fixed, capped
  • Distribution: community farming (LP lenders and borrowers on Tarot), team, reserves
  • Governance: TAROT holders vote on pool additions, risk parameters, emission weights per chain
  • xTAROT: single-staking for protocol fee revenue
  • Protocol fee: portion of borrowing interest → xTAROT stakers

Risk Analysis

The approach is detailed in the sections below.

Key Risks for Leveraged LPers

  • Price volatility: at 5× leverage, moderate price moves cause liquidation
  • Impermanent loss amplification: IL on underlying LP token × leverage multiplier
  • Borrowing rate: must pay borrow interest; if farm APY < borrow rate → negative carry
  • Oracle dependency: each pool uses its own oracle for LP value; manipulation risk exists for thin-liquidity LP pairs

Key Risks for Lenders

  • Utilization risk: if all lent USDC is borrowed → lenders can’t withdraw until borrowers repay (or position liquidated)
  • Liquidation shortfall: if LP price drops faster than liquidation bots react → bad debt → lenders absorb losses
  • Pool-specific: isolated pools mean lenders in high-risk pools face higher risk than blue-chip pools

Sources

  1. Tarot Finance Documentation — Tarot Finance Team, 2021–2024. Technical documentation covering isolated lending pools (TarotFactory: deploys new pool for each LP token; each pool: two Collateral vaults (one per token in the LP pair) + one BorrowableToken vault per token; BorrowableToken (bToken): ERC-20 receipt for lenders; exchange rate: increases as borrower interest accrues; mint(amount): lend token → receive bToken; redeem(amount): burn bToken → receive underlying (if available; must wait if utilization = 100%); Collateral vault: accepts LP token deposits; tracks position health; checks: accountLiquidity() = collateral_value × CF – borrow_balance_A – borrow_balance_B; leverage: position taken automatically (user approves LP addition → TarotRouter borrows A and B from vaults → mints more LP → deposits new LP as collateral); liquidate: if accountLiquidity < 0 → liquidation available; liquidation bonus: 4-8% (pool-specific); LP pricing oracle: Tarot uses geometric mean price of A/B over 15-min window for LP value calculation; LP value formula: 2 × sqrt(reserveA × reserveB × priceA × priceB) / totalSupply (oracle-based computation)); borrow rate model (utilization U = totalBorrow / totalSupply; rate model: below kink (80%): linear 2-6% APY; above kink: steeply rising to 40%+ APY; rate smoothing: prevents sudden jump via time-averaging))..]
  1. “Leveraged LP Farming: Tarot, Alpha Homora, and Impermax Compared” — Leveraged Yield Farming Research, 2022. Comparative analysis of the three main leveraged LP protocols — Alpha Finance HomoraV2 (pooled lending, Uniswap/SushiSwap LP), Impermax (similar Tarot-style isolation), and Tarot Finance (isolated lending) — examining capital efficiency, risk isolation, and how each handled the bear market of 2022.
  1. “Tarot Finance on Velodrome: ve(3,3) LP Leverage and VELO Amplification” — ve(3,3) Leverage Research, 2022–2023. Analysis of Tarot Finance’s Velodrome integration on Optimism — the specific pools (OP/USDC, ETH/USDC, USDC/DAI), the mechanics of leveraging Velodrome LP positions (borrowing OP and USDC to add to Velodrome LP → collect more VELO), and the economic scenarios where leveraged VELO farming is profitable vs risky.
  1. “Auto-Deleveraging and Liquidation Bots in Leveraged LP Protocols” — DeFi Automation Research, 2022. Technical analysis of the liquidation bot ecosystem for leveraged LP protocols (Tarot, Alpha Homora, Impermax) — the detection mechanisms for liquidatable positions, the LP liquidation execution flow (liquidate → receive LP → remove LP → sell assets → profit), the risk of bad debt if liquidation is delayed, and how Tarot implemented an automated position closure system to reduce liquidator dependency.
  1. “Isolated vs Pooled Lending in DeFi: Kashi, Tarot, Euler, and Risk Containment” — DeFi Architecture Research, 2022. Comparative analysis of isolated lending architectures vs pooled architectures — Kashi (SushiSwap), Tarot, Euler Finance vs Compound/Aave — examining how isolation prevents systemic loss from individual asset failure (concentrated in one pool vs spreading across all depositors), with case studies from 2022 exploits.

Related Terms