I am a fan of fixed rate lending, but disagree with this take. Curator incentives are still badly broken across most protocols - they are paid by squeezing borrowers and putting lenders way out on the risk curve. The old job was picking the highest yielding pools, full stop. Risk doesn’t matter because heads I win, tails you lose. It’s TradFi but with less competence. New job looks like the old job. This is a design flaw in ALL curated markets I’m aware of. Curators should have: 1) Fiduciary duty, or at least a duty to allocate to suitable products. 2) Real junior capital. Not pari passu. Not junior-in-theory-but-not-practice. No one is better able to get out early than the curator. They need to go down with the ship. 3) Hard, immutable restraints on risk profile migration. I’ve seen vaults that start out blue chip (WBTC, wstETH, WETH) and then ended up quietly adding Stream exposure 4) Full disclosure of all side deals. Curators make shit money for the legal risk, and I strongly suspect most live off of subsidies or side deals. Payment-for-lending-flow and any other arrangements should be disclosed in full. Most curators should not manage money, and fixed rates - as wonderful as they are - does not change that.