Ask about Mars Protocol

Logo of Mars ProtocolMars Protocol(MARS)

Total Value Locked$0

TVL by Chain

Neutron$0

Terra Classic$0

Osmosis$0

Key Metrics

Cumulative Fees$265,386
Cumulative Fees by chain

Neutron$265,386

Cumulative Revenue$66,341
Cumulative Revenue by chain

Neutron$66,341

Cumulative Perp Volume$64.87m
Cumulative Perp Volume by chain

Neutron$64.87m

Protocol Information

Mars is a multichain credit protocol enabling borrowing and lending primitives in the Cosmos. With Mars v2, the protocol introduced Rover credit accounts to Osmosis. Much like Binance subaccounts, credit accounts act as transferrable NFT containers where users can deposit assets, and use them as collateral for borrowing, spot or margin trading, leveraged yield farming, and hedging — all with a single liquidation point

Category:Lending
Products:

Methodology

TVL: Total value of all coins held in the smart contracts of the protocol

Perp Volume: Notional volume of all trades including leverage on the perp exchange

Hacks

Date: Dec 14, 2025

Protocol: Mars Perps

Amount: $960,000

Classification: Market Manipulation

Technique: Funding Rate Arbitrage

Chains: Neutron

Language: Rust

Target Type: DeFi Protocol

Competitors

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Mars Protocol's TVL?

Mars Protocol currently has $0 in total value locked. TVL has decreased 100% over the past 30 days.

What chains does Mars Protocol operate on?

Mars Protocol operates on 3 chains: Osmosis, Neutron, and Terra Classic.

How does Mars Protocol's TVL compare to similar protocols?

Among Lending protocols tracked by DefiLlama, Mars Protocol ranks #486 by TVL. The category holds $54.86b across 522 protocols, and Mars Protocol accounts for <0.1% of that total. Other leading protocols include Nolus Protocol, Juris Protocol, Edge Protocol, Aave V3, Morpho Blue, SparkLend, JustLend V1, Maple, Compound V3, and Kamino Lend.

Has Mars Protocol ever been exploited?

Mars Protocol has 1 recorded security incident. The most recent incident occurred on Dec 14, 2025 and involved $960,000. It was classified as Market Manipulation.