Last night we joined @TokenBrice on a Space about the Curve DAO's call for risk provider proposals. A recap for those who missed it. Curve's call is split into two scopes. @PharosWatch is bidding on Scope 1, the crvUSD mint markets and peg keepers, which sits squarely in their stablecoin rating expertise. Xerberus is bidding on Scope 2, the @llamalend markets, plus a system-wide simulation layer. Two independent proposals, but a shared philosophy: show the work before asking for anything, and take the budget mostly in locked CRV. The theme that kept coming back: relying on a single risk provider was a structural weakness. Multiple teams per scope means assessments get challenged, debated, and sharpened. A DAO is better served by providers who disagree in public than by one team nobody audits. What Xerberus brings to Scope 2: to risk-rate positions anywhere in DeFi we had to rebuild LlamaLend and crvUSD market math inside our systemic model. That work is done. For the DAO it translates to live market monitoring, simulating parameter changes before they go to a vote, and alerts when stress outside Curve is about to travel into Curve markets. Why that matters? : As an example, a wallet spread across three positions on three different protocols looked diversified, until dependency mapping showed nearly all of it resolved to a single underlying protocol. That is systemic risk, and it stays invisible until you map the whole graph. One more point worth highlighting : Ratings paid for by the rated party is the model that broke in 2008. Risk assessment for DAOs only works when the party paying is the one that needs the answer to be true. Both proposals are live on the @CurveFinance governance forum. Read them, question them, and bring the hard questions.