This categorisation doesn’t make sense and is pretty much self-serving. First of all, arguing that a vault where a curator has discretion over how capital is allocated across markets, and can even expand into new markets beyond the user’s initial mandate, which, btw, is a known Morpho drawback (very non-LP friendly), should be considered non-custodial simply because it has a timelock is about as strong an argument as a wet European paper straw. Especially the part of implicit approvals that simply changes the whole allocation mandate and users don’t even have the proper tools to monitor these changes. Also the part on relying roles, doesn't really solve much, simply creates a blame game and relocates potentially liability but doesn't solve the actual problem. Vaults that could reasonably be considered non-custodial are those without a manager. For example, vaults that simply wrap deposits into a lending protocol, or the original Yearn vaults. These are make sense to be categorized as non-custodial vaults. There’s nothing inherently wrong with discretionary vaults, as long as the regulatory path is figured out. I’m all for developing industry standards, but let’s at least do it in a way that serves the broader industry rather than your own interests. 😂