The Aave vs Morpho debate that resurfaces every time a vault blows up is honestly misplaced. Fundamentally, both operate on the same lending-borrowing model — the difference lies in who curates risk. Aave acts as both the vault curator and the risk manager. When you deposit into Aave, you don’t choose which asset your funds are lent against — Aave does. It decides which assets to onboard, how to isolate markets, and what parameters govern them. This “our way or the highway” model works beautifully in bull markets, but often breaks on the way down. Time will tell if this cycle is any different. Morpho takes a different path. It decentralizes risk curation. Instead of Aave deciding for everyone, Morpho lets third-party curators — like Gauntlet or Steakhouse — create vaults tailored to specific risk appetites. These curators design parameters around collateral quality, liquidity depth, and liquidation logic, allowing lenders and borrowers to self-select into the kind of risk they want to take. Take Vault Bridge, which runs on Morpho. Same curators, same ecosystem — yet its vaults didn’t blow up. Why? Because the collateral was properly curated, liquidity was deep, and exposure was balanced. It’s not magic; it’s design. What we’re seeing isn’t a fight between two protocols. It’s a reflection of risk philosophy. Aave centralizes risk management; Morpho decentralizes it. And just like in 2008, when banks failed not because “banking” was broken but because asset quality and greed were, DeFi failures will almost always trace back to risk design, not protocol design. As yields rise, so does risk. That’s why one USDC vault earns 5% while another offers 12%. Institutions — and serious capital — will increasingly demand the ability to choose what they lend against, not just where they lend. In that world, the winners won’t just be the platforms that lend and borrow — but the ones that let markets curate risk, transparently.