The kelpDAO incident reignited the "AAVE's multi-collateral model is fragile, go siloed" take. For me, this approach misses the point. Lenders want to pick their risk exposure → segregated markets. Borrowers want capital efficiency → portfolio margin. In my opinion, both are right. Siloed markets mean collateral drag, fragmented liquidity, and position-level liquidation risk instead of portfolio-level. That's exactly why institutions flooded into AAVE in the first place — portfolio margining is the default at every prime broker and every clearinghouse. Retreating to one collateral per market is a step backward for an industry whose entire pitch is capital efficiency. But the lender side isn't wrong either. Outsourcing your risk preference across N collateral types to a single curator ≠ expressing your own risk view. The real question isn't siloed vs. unified. It's: how do you let lenders define which collateral they back and at what size, while borrowers still cross-margin their full portfolio against the aggregate pool? That's the design problem worth solving. Not retreating to silos.