rsETH poses an interesting question. rsETH is minted on mainnet. All other chains hold let’s call it rsETH’ - a derivative of the rsETH held in the bridge escrow.

Are these actually separate products?
The argument is that rsETH’ users took on bridge risk, while rsETH users never agreed to.
The argument against is that rsETH’ was never presented as a different product, or indicated that it could experience losses without rsETH doing so as well.
When I due diligence for RWAs, understanding where you stand in line for repayment is one of the first questions you ask.
I think many folks kind of forget about that with onchain assets. Even something as simple as a fully onchain asset inside a Morpho vault comes down to what version the vault is.
I think this laxness is due to the prevalence of binary outcomes in crypto assets - it’s dead or it isn’t - so there’s historically not much of a residual to fight over for recovery.
So in many ways this is growing pains of a crypto that is becoming a little safer - the asset didn’t go to zero, or even to 50% losses. These are losses that are potentially sustainable, but only if owners and lenders begin to price not just likelihood of impairment, but what the expected recovery is.
Anyway, that’s your silver lining: we are beginning to see impaired assets recently with substantial recovery, which adds a new leg to risk management.