DeFi introduces a new landscape of risks, ranging from smart contract exploits to governance failures, that do not fit neatly into traditional insurance frameworks. These challenges, however, also open the door to rethinking what insurance can look like in a trustless, on-chain environment. 

In order to conceptualise DeFi insurance, we must first look at how it has historically developed and why its unique characteristics force us to rethink those long-standing principles.

The Ancient Roots of Risk Management

Insurance developed organically where commerce flourished and risks needed to be managed. Risk pooling has been a common practice throughout human history, with early examples showing remarkable sophistication in understanding collective risk management.

Chinese traders demonstrated early risk diversification by dividing their goods among several ships to reduce the catastrophic impact of a single shipwreck. This practice reveals an intuitive understanding of what would later become formal insurance principles. Around 1750 BCE, the Code of Hammurabi, attributed to the king who ruled Babylon between, contained one of the earliest attempts to set rules for settling debts. As trade networks expanded, early maritime insurance emerged alongside developing financial markets, demonstrating that virtually no market has operated without some form of insurance component. The formalization of probability theory, particularly through contributions like Bernoulli's law of large numbers, provided one of the core mathematical foundations that created the idea of ad hoc risk that has led to the formulation of modern insurance.

The law of large numbers established that over a large series of independent events, outcomes trend toward normal distribution around expected values. This mathematical breakthrough enabled the development of major insurance institutions like Lloyd's of London, which originally insured ships, along with giants like Allianz, AIG, and MetLife. These institutions became essential building blocks supporting various industries and financial portfolios, proving that systematic risk management could scale alongside economic growth.

Core Tenets of Traditional Insurance

For any product to be traditionally insurable, it must possess specific traits that allow statistical analysis and risk pooling to function effectively. The risk must be quantifiable, meaning it can be measured and predicted statistically with reasonable confidence. Losses must be fortuitous or accidental, occurring without intentional manipulation by the insured party.

Next, individual risk events should be weakly correlated, ensuring that one loss doesn't systematically trigger others in a domino effect. Premium pricing must be adequate to cover expected losses while generating sustainable returns for insurers. External diversification factors such as geographic distribution can help mitigate concentrated risk exposure by spreading it across uncorrelated variables. 

The premium must be adequate relative to the risk, creating a sustainable model. Modern insurance has even evolved to include parametric or index-based solutions that cover the probability of a loss-causing event happening, like an earthquake, rather than indemnifying the actual loss incurred from the event.

Finally, the law of large numbers must be applicable, requiring a sufficient volume of independent trials to enable statistical predictability and stable pricing models. These principles have served traditional insurance well for centuries, but DeFi presents a radically different risk environment.

The Binary Nature of DeFi Risk

DeFi presents an unconventional risk environment that fundamentally challenges every principle that traditional insurance relies upon. This isn't merely a matter of adapting existing models, DeFi represents a completely different type of risk that requires new analytical frameworks.

DeFi operates without the benefit of the law of large numbers since technical exploits represent binary events rather than statistical distributions. When a smart contract gets exploited, it's not a partial loss that can be averaged out over time, it's typically a complete catastrophic failure. Technical exploits carry total loss potential, meaning they can result in complete asset loss rather than the partial damage that traditional insurance models expect to handle.

Asset dependencies create interconnected risk webs where protocols often rely on shared infrastructure, creating cascading risk effects that can amplify initial losses exponentially. Major risk events tend to have ecosystem-wide impact, affecting the entire DeFi landscape simultaneously rather than remaining isolated incidents that can be absorbed by diversified portfolios.

DeFi Risks and Paradoxes

DeFi risks fall into two categories requiring different analytical approaches. Technical risks include smart contract exploits, protocol vulnerabilities, infrastructure failures. These prove extremely difficult to quantify statistically and have no historical precedent. Economic risks like bad debt accumulation and liquidation failures are more familiar but behave differently within DeFi's volatile, interconnected ecosystem.

The ecosystem faces severe diversification challenges with limited external risk spreaders and highly correlated risks through shared protocols and blockchain infrastructure. DeFi's composable nature creates systemic correlations where protocol failures rapidly propagate ecosystem-wide.

The central paradox: most DeFi insurance attempts use DeFi infrastructure itself, creating circular risk where insurance mechanisms face identical risks as insured protocols. Effective DeFi insurance requires external capital and infrastructure not participating in DeFi's risk vectors, explaining why early attempts have struggled to achieve meaningful scale or true risk transfer.

What is the Path Ahead for a Robust Solution?

Viable DeFi insurance requires several essential components. Solutions must be embedded on-chain with automated execution for seamless integration and programmable claims processing. Coverage must address both technical exploits and economic risks while demonstrating billion-dollar capacity with improved capital efficiency compared to current solutions.

Furthermore, two major hurdles should also be addressed. Firstly, while the law of large numbers may not directly apply, DeFi insurance can utilize layered diversification: reinsurance agreements across independent risk pools, capital tranching to allocate losses by seniority, and parametric triggers that automate coverage payouts based on on-chain metrics (e.g., price slippage thresholds, oracle deviation tolerances). Such architectures can approximate the smoothing benefits achieved by traditional insurers.

Second, the binding constraint is the cost of capital. DeFi insurance pools are typically funded in ETH, BTC, or stablecoins—assets that can earn native yield via staking, lending, or LP fees. To attract underwriters, insurers must clear that hurdle rate, which lifts required returns and, in turn, premiums. That creates a familiar bind: price premiums high and protocols balk; price them low and capacity thins while solvency buffers erode.

The way out is tapping alternative sources of capital. Institutional allocators—pensions, endowments, insurers, hedge funds—control large pools with defined risk/return targets. By packaging DeFi insurance into instruments calibrated to those targets (e.g., clearly structured tranches with predefined upside in exchange for first-loss exposure), programs can lower their blended cost of capital—expanding capacity while keeping premiums affordable and reserves robust.

By designing DeFi insurance with these considerations in mind, the industry is likely to create more sustainable and effective insurance models. 

Do you want to dive deeper into this topic? Rewatch our latest webinar here