In defence of Morpho: There’s still a widespread misconception in crypto that nobody should ever lose money lending, and that if they do, the protocol or curator must have failed and somebody else should make them whole. But the interest lenders earn is compensation for taking risk. Risk means losses will sometimes happen. Over a long enough period, lending against almost any collateral will eventually produce losses, regardless of oracle design, LTVs or other parameters. If there were literally no risk of loss, there would be little reason for borrowers to pay meaningful interest. Higher yields generally exist because somebody is taking more risk. There’s also no universally “safest” lending design, because protections for lenders and borrowers are often in tension. Every design makes trade-offs. A fixed oracle can protect borrowers from short-term volatility and manipulation, but transfers more risk to lenders. Lenders should demand more interest for bearing that risk. A market oracle gives lenders more responsive pricing and can protect them better as collateral deteriorates, but exposes borrowers to volatility, liquidity shocks and manipulation. Borrowers should therefore be more conservative. No protocol design can protect lenders if the collateral itself goes sour or if there’s a hack somewhere else in the system. Morpho has more blow-ups than Aave largely because it permits a much broader spectrum of markets and risk. Anyone can create a market, so naturally some markets will be much riskier than anything Aave would list. That isn’t evidence that the model is broken.