Some misunderstandings in the Lending debacle because things are so tangled up: 1) Morpho, as a tech, offers markets (the WETH-USDC at x% APY) and vaults (the tech that allows easy allocation of funds). 2) Risk curators decide where to allocate funds based on supply and demand of loans while accounting for asset quality and liquidity, etc. (risk). 3) There are asset issuers, who wrap up and "summarize" their entire yield strategy in a token. This token goes up in value and everyone is happy. So where did things go wrong? 1) These assets made by issuers are quite opaque and may have backroom deals. This makes risk difficult to be understood by the masses. 2) For curators, because of competitive pressure to deliver yields, they have to take up increasingly risky positions to boost yields. Therefore, now that the liquidity crisis and collateral deterioration strike, they can't exit. 3) For Morpho, since these markets are permissionless, they are, in a way, "powerless." Whether you believe they should be curated is another issue because right now they position themslves as a primitive, but the context above should let you know that they are merely a platform and a tech provider. If I really want to pinpoint the issue here, I would say it's the extremely opaque, poor-quality asset issuance, and risk visibility. This doesn't range just from xUSD but all the way to most stables listed on Pendle or whatever YBS of the day Remember that, onchain, you can still see what the curators are doing, especially how they invest around Morpho markets. However, for the asset issuer, the tokens, EOAs running lending-borrow loops, etc., are very opaque. I don't think this will end. The next variant of this is neobanks, and it is gonna hurt more people. Yes, you read it here first. So, as these neobanks race to the bottom on who can get marginally better yields at a shit ton of risk incurred (just like these curators), you can be more alert, but alas, I feel sad for the set of people getting rekt.