The old alarm clock on the table has stopped again. As I pat it, I think about this collateralization issue: the layered returns are quite tempting, but safety isn't Lego stacking. To put it plainly, sharing security also includes sharing failures. If you repeatedly lend out the same collateral, it may look like you're earning multiple layers externally, but internally you're actually amplifying the same tail risk several times over.

Recently, the group has been sharing screenshots about stablecoin regulation, reserve audits, and various "de-pegging" warnings. When emotions run high, it's easy to confuse "appearing stable" with "actually able to withstand the pressure." Anyway, when I look at a project now, I first ask: when something goes wrong, who will foot the bill, how will liquidation work, and can the nodes and validators really afford to take this risk? Otherwise, no matter how loud the alarm clock rings, it’s just an illusion.