When you step back, I think it’s clear that one of the lessons in the Kelp Incident is that DeFi needs to account better for priority of claims.

No, this doesn’t mean slap a tranching layer on top - many have defective features that will break them in my opinion, and they only address part of the problem space.
In no particular order, here are some pain points and my recommendations as a starting point:
1) Clarify that lending is non-recourse. If you’re a borrower, this means your maximum risk is your collateral securing the loan.
This is EXTREMELY valuable as a feature, and DeFi needs a way to codify or formalize this so institutions believe they won’t be identified and pursued if some collateral becomes insufficient to cover losses.
2) Build in mechanisms where the lenders simply foreclose on the collateral assets if they cannot be liquidated. This allows illiquid markets to clear, but also needs to be understood by lenders as a possibility.
This would, coincidentally, make lending on RWAs, semi-liquid assets, and permissioned assets easier. To my knowledge, only Silo and maybe Ajna have this as a mechanism.
3) Understand that liquidity creates de facto different seniorities amongst ostensibly pari passu lenders.
This is an urgent problem amongst all of the major lending protocols, and is a real problem for any evergreen fund out in TradFi as well. In the real world, this is why painful practices like clawback windows exist in the run up to bankruptcy, but that’s neither possible nor desirable in DeFi.
In theory, some protocols offer immediate pro rata haircuts, but in practice this is hard to execute well, and generally at the discretion of someone with an incentive to drag their feet.
This creates race conditions where de facto losses tend to accrue to the last out, creating the incentive for bank runs, as we were most recently reminded.
4) Software or financial intermediary. This is a big one and has large implications for things like recovery claims.
Way back in the mists of time, DeFi was supposed to be software (we call these projects protocols for a reason), like SMTP or POP3. Devs weren’t touching your funds (in theory), but were updating software to support various digital assets.
It’s pretty easy to argue that software like Ajna or Uniswap are indeed software, not financial institutions. Morpho also has positioned itself well, albeit with the wrinkle that curators are now where the buck stops.
Contrast with many CeFi (often branded as CeDeFi) companies or token-projects where the team makes investment allocations and decisions rather than expanding or curtailing support for an asset and then seeing whether users react with utilization.
If I’m a lender who loses money and feels litigious, these distinctions matter a lot, because it affects who my ambulance-chasing, Dollar Store attorney will name in a lawsuit.
Clearly delineating between “dumb pipes” (can’t upgrade), “smart pipes” (expand/curtailing support but specific users are not targetable), and onchain asset manager will better let every one of those categories lean into their comparative advantages.
And even the onchain asset manager would be less exposed if they make sure to address Number 1 (clarify non-recourse status of DeFi lending), although they may themselves have to put up collateral instead of just opening a vault.