1) I would say all or nearly all of these make sense from a business and risk management perspective. 2) It highlights the challenging economics of DeFi lending. Without enormous scale, lending markets don’t make much money, whether you are a curator or a lending protocol. Fixed costs for human labor is high, and unlike DEXes, lending projects have large labor inputs for continued operations. There’s a reason why $50k is about the bottom size of a loan ticket if your business wants to borrow money in the real world. 3) As I’ve said before, some kind of illness is pervasive in DeFi. The major lending venues design their rates to pay at or below the risk-free rate, which is a terrible bargain. Simultaneously, borrowers appear unable to consistently sustain paying below or at the risk free rate in many markets. I don’t know why this is, but it’s an unsettling health indicator for the onchain economy. 4) Specific to Aave, they need to have a more focused plan on how to make money on new deployments. Unlike Ethereum v3 which benefits from inertia, I do not see a path to success on ANY Aave deployment where the targeted yield to lenders is at or below the risk-free rate. I would level a similar critique at other lending markets. This is not a low-rate environment, and DeFi needs to offer competitive rates. I’d be curious to know the churn in Morpho and Euler markets, especially off Ethereum and ex-incentives