Onchain lending was never going to reach the masses in it's raw form. Vault-based structured products are how it actually scales. Just not for the reason that worries you. First, ofc a vault isn't bulletproof inherently. It exists to isolate risk so one blowup doesn't take the system with it, and to hand a user a finished product instead of parameters to babysit and rebalance alone. That abstraction isn't DeFi betraying its mission. It's DeFi finally getting a MEGA distribution layer. It's why @coinbase routes USDC through @SteakhouseFi on @Morpho, why @krakenfx earns through @veda_labs (s/o to @sunandr_ and team), why capital that never touched a lending market now sits inside one. The packaging is the product. And the part this critique skips. Someone always does the underwriting (or risk management). No lending market exists where nobody picks the collateral and prices the risk. The hardcoded oracle and the allocator you point to were a real curator failure on Resolv, and the same exploit was contained in minutes by curators who'd done theirs. On Morpho the "underwriters" or more precisely risk managers are individual curators like @gauntlet_xyz, @SteakhouseFi, @SentoraHQ, @kpk_io, @Re7Capital, etc. On Aave it's the DAO. Don't get me wrong I'm very bullish on Aave and the team, but rsETH is the cleanest proof that even a monopoly "curator" with maximum skin in the game is still a curator, and still a single point of judgment. Aave priced rsETH. It did not price Kelp's bridge. Up to $230M of bad debt, billions draining sideways through the shared pool until stables hit 100% utilization. The response was textbook-fast, frozen within the hour. The pooled structure still socialized the stress, because in a shared book one mispriced asset is everyone's problem. Roughly 40% of LayerZero apps run that same config; it was simply never priced. Which is also why Aave V4 unbundles the monolith into hub-and-spokes: the DAO holds the perimeter, specialized spokes set precise markets, a risk-premium layer finally prices collateral. To me, even the biggest team in lending seems to be moving toward more of a curation-like unbundled approach, rather than away form it. Because most capital does not want to underwrite its own risk, and never has. That is the entire reason banks, asset managers and underwriters exist, and why structured credit is a multi-trillion-dollar business. They have failed too. The answer in 2008 was never "everyone audits their own mortgage." It was better disclosure and better rails. That's the real work where defi has to step up. We have this shaping up pretty decently i'd say with risk ratings from teams like @CredoraNetwork, @xerberus, @StakingRewards, etc and an recently an EF bounty for the aggregation of all that, Another thing that helps. @andrewhong5297 and the @herd_eco team recently shipped a product that recursively maps every manager's position in a token into one balance sheet. More visibility, so any curator or risk manager can do their job better. Strip the abstraction and you don't get purer DeFi. You get a worse bank with a smaller balance sheet. Every lending market has a curator-adjacent role. Aave's is a DAO, a bank's is a committee you'll never meet. The only difference is that onchain you can audit yours in real time. Bury the risk in a pool or price it in the open. That was always the only choice.