The Morpho x Robinhood deal is strange for an outside observer. Most of Morpho's growth and TVL has been driven by Coinbase. Coinbase is an investor in Morpho, gave it preference on their onchain products, and that's a big part of how the protocol scaled. That growth is what allowed Morpho to negotiate bigger BD deals including Robinhood. Robinhood is one of Coinbase's main competitors. Robinhood chose to build its onchain product on a protocol that's economically and intrinsically tied to its competitor. This is odd because: 1) It makes it harder to differentiate the offer from a technical perspective (besides with incentives). 2) It creates a risk vector between the companies. Isolated markets and separate chains limit direct financial contagion but they don't isolate reputation. If there's a bank run or liquidity crunch on either side, users won't distinguish between "Robinhood's Morpho markets" and "Coinbase's Morpho markets." Also, Robinhood's markets are curated by Steakhouse, one of the biggest Morpho curators and one of the same curators active across Coinbase-linked Morpho markets. A curator stress event damages confidence in every market they curate, on both sides. The obvious defense is that Morpho is just the neutral infrastructure, but in this case there’s no neutrality since Morpho is subsidizing a competitor growth. Robinhood is advertising a 7% yield that is largely subsidized by Morpho. In other words, Morpho is subsidizing a product that directly competes with a Coinbase product. And to add to all this, in Morpho's latest funding round which likely funds growth campaigns like this, Coinbase Ventures is not listed as an investor, though they were a previous known backer. Curious on what Coinbase does in response: → Do they launch their own DeFi lending market and compete with Morpho? Coinbase has past examples of shipping products that cannibalize partners. → Do they drop Morpho's exclusivity on Coinbase onchain products and open up to other lending markets?