The so-called chain reaction of explosions—DeFi market is clearly being led astray here. First off, risks do exist, and I recommend withdrawing funds from an operational standpoint. But fundamentally, the issues are human-caused, not structural problems within DeFi itself. For example, people started by questioning Curator, which gradually turned into fud about the Morpho model. Some media articles are especially clickbait-y. I think it’s necessary to clarify some concepts and facts: If a platform doesn’t have a Curator, then it itself is the Curator. The Morpho model and Aave model are like the JD.com model versus the Taobao model. People think Aave is fine because, first, the market sees Aave’s Markets as “strictly selected,” and second, Aave has built up its brand and treasury over time. If something goes wrong, there’s someone to step in. Under the Morpho model, however, Curators have high authority, but the ecosystem is mixed with good and bad actors. Users find it hard to distinguish synthetic assets mixed into collateral, and the underlying funds have already been misused. In terms of transparency, this is due to insufficient transparency from the underlying asset-related projects, not because the Morpho model itself is less transparent than the Aave model. From a risk structure perspective, Aave’s structure isn’t necessarily superior to the Morpho model. Its mixed pool model is more prone to cross-contamination in the event of bad debt. This has been questioned and discussed long ago, but Aave’s risk control capabilities are solid, and it has introduced measures along with a strong treasury foundation. Over time, this issue has been gradually accepted. On the other hand, the Morpho model’s isolated pool design somewhat mitigates bad debt contagion. However, its capital utilization efficiency is lower than the mixed pool model. The idea of sacrificing security for higher returns simply doesn’t exist. Currently, the “explosions” spreading from the Morpho model are caused by issues with the merchants—Curators in this Taobao-like model—and the goods they sell—the underlying project teams. In terms of transparency, you can clearly see what the collateral is and its proportions, but you can’t know whether the collateral is healthy or what the project teams behind it are doing with your money. The industry needs to raise its standards for various stablecoin/synthetic asset projects. These semi-transparent projects, which were heavily criticized in the last cycle, are now being repackaged as ceDeFi. How did the market come to accept them?