Purpose
Now that Moonwell’s Ethereum expansion workstream is moving forward, it’s worth opening a broader discussion around where Moonwell should consider expanding next. This document is intended to serve as a shared research framework and discussion thread for contributors, delegates, and community members who want to evaluate potential new chain deployments in a structured way. The goal is not to rush toward a specific deployment, but to compare opportunities, identify risks, and determine where Moonwell could realistically create value.
Several areas have already come up in discussion, including Circle’s Arc network, RWA and tokenized asset ecosystems, and other chains where Moonwell could potentially grow deposits, borrowing activity, users, protocol revenue, or strategic relationships. Rather than evaluating these opportunities in isolation, this framework is meant to help contributors ask the same core questions across each candidate network: what is the opportunity, why does it matter for Moonwell, what would users actually do there, and what risks should governance understand before moving forward?
Why Chain Expansion Matters
Moonwell’s long-term growth depends on being present in ecosystems where users, assets, and onchain financial activity are growing. A successful chain expansion can help Moonwell reach new depositors and borrowers, support new collateral types, deepen ecosystem partnerships, and grow protocol revenue. It can also position Moonwell as a lending venue for emerging categories of onchain finance, including stablecoins, tokenized assets, and potentially institutional or RWA-related markets.
At the same time, chain expansion should be selective. Every new deployment adds technical, operational, liquidity, and governance complexity. A chain may be interesting from a narrative perspective but still not be a good fit if there is limited user demand, weak liquidity, poor liquidation infrastructure, immature oracle support, or insufficient ecosystem backing.
Core Evaluation Areas
Moonwell DAO contributors should think about each expansion opportunity across a few core dimensions: ecosystem activity, asset quality, liquidity, infrastructure, strategic fit, and risk. A strong candidate network should show evidence of real onchain usage, meaningful stablecoin or asset flows, reliable DeFi infrastructure, and a credible path to lending and borrowing demand. Contributors should look beyond surface-level TVL or ecosystem hype and focus on whether users would actually supply assets, borrow against collateral, and use Moonwell as a core lending venue.
The asset and liquidity opportunity is especially important. Moonwell should understand which assets could be listed, whether those assets have reliable oracles, whether DEX liquidity is deep enough for liquidations, and whether liquidators can operate safely on the network. This applies to stablecoins, blue-chip assets, native ecosystem assets, liquid staking or restaking assets, and any RWA or tokenized asset opportunities. If an asset is interesting but has limited liquidity or unique risks, contributors should consider whether it would require conservative caps, isolated markets, or further research before being supported.
Finally, Moonwell should evaluate whether the deployment is strategically worth the added complexity. A new chain should offer a clear reason for Moonwell to be there, such as an underserved lending market, strong ecosystem support, differentiated asset opportunities, meaningful incentives, or potential partner relationships. Governance should also consider the technical, operational, bridge, oracle, and monitoring risks introduced by each deployment. The best expansion opportunities score well across all dimensions — evidence of user demand, available and liquid assets, mature infrastructure, and clear strategic advantage for Moonwell — enabling Moonwell to create real user value, grow protocol activity, and manage risks responsibly.
Arc Network Discussion
Arc was specifically mentioned as one potential area for further discussion. The key question for Moonwell is not simply whether Arc is interesting, but whether Arc could create a differentiated lending opportunity that fits Moonwell’s strengths. Contributors interested in Arc should focus on what assets, users, and ecosystem relationships Arc could bring to Moonwell that are not already available on existing deployments.
Research on Arc should try to answer several questions. What types of assets are expected to be important on Arc? Would Moonwell have a chance to become an early lending venue in the ecosystem? What infrastructure would be required for a safe deployment? Are there potential partners, issuers, or ecosystem teams that Moonwell should speak with? Most importantly, would an Arc deployment give Moonwell a clear strategic advantage, or would it simply add another chain without a strong reason for users to move there?
For context, Aave Labs published a Temp Check on May 29, 2026 to deploy Aave V4 on Arc, Circle’s institutional Layer-1, which is preparing for mainnet. This is an early-stage governance signal rather than a confirmed deployment, but it indicates that the Arc ecosystem team is active and that established lending protocols are evaluating the network. Arc’s planned native asset framework includes USDC, EURC, and cirBTC — Circle’s 1:1 BTC-backed wrapped Bitcoin, which went live on Ethereum on June 8, 2026 and is planned for Arc. cirBTC may be of interest to the Moonwell community as a potential future listing. See more of that conversation here.
RWA and Tokenized Asset Discussion
RWA and tokenized asset markets may become an increasingly important part of onchain lending over time. Moonwell should consider whether there are opportunities to support high-quality tokenized assets, stablecoin-related markets, or isolated lending markets tied to institutional assets. This could include tokenized treasuries, yield-bearing stablecoins, tokenized funds, or other assets that bring offchain financial exposure onchain.
However, RWA markets require careful analysis. These assets may involve issuer risk, redemption risk, transfer restrictions, regulatory constraints, liquidity limitations, and different user expectations than crypto-native collateral. Moonwell should avoid treating RWAs as equivalent to standard crypto assets. If the community wants to explore this area, contributors should focus on which assets are liquid, transparent, composable, and realistic for a lending protocol to support.
A potential long-term opportunity is for Moonwell to become a trusted lending venue for high-quality tokenized assets, but this may require a different strategy than a standard asset listing.
Questions for the Community
- Which chains should Moonwell evaluate next?
- Why should Moonwell consider them?
- Where is there real user demand?
- Which ecosystems are still too early?
- Should Moonwell focus on DeFi, stablecoins, RWAs, or all three?
- What would make a deployment worth the effort?
- What minimum standards should a chain meet?
- What risks should rule out a chain?
- Which partners should Moonwell speak with?
- Who wants to help with research or outreach?
Proposed Next Steps
Now that Moonwell is live on Ethereum Mainnet and Snapshot access has been restored, we can use Snapshot as a meaningful temperature check on which chains to pursue next. Contributors are encouraged to use this thread to surface candidate chains, share research, and flag risks so that any future temp check is grounded in real analysis rather than narrative alone.
Closing
This document is intended to help Moonwell approach chain expansion thoughtfully and collaboratively. Expansion can be a meaningful growth lever, but only if Moonwell is selective about where it deploys and realistic about what each new ecosystem requires. The goal should be to identify opportunities where Moonwell can create real value for users, grow protocol activity, deepen strategic relationships, and manage risk responsibly. Feedback, counterarguments, and additional candidate networks are all welcome.