Debates about decentralized finance seem to have been stuck in the same place over the years.

It's just the old tune: breaking down barriers to entry, removing middlemen, opening markets. These ideas are of course correct and have indeed influenced the market. But as time moves forward, the nature of the problem has changed.

Is simply "being able to enter" really sufficient? When institutional capital enters the market, markets become more rational, and risk appetite returns to prudence, what they want is no longer just access — but a set of operational rules that remain controllable, predictable, and acceptable even during market volatility.

There's an interesting idea behind a certain project. It neither calls for a revolution of traditional finance nor just directly transfers old methods onto the blockchain. It quietly asks a question:

What happens if assets themselves have no access restrictions, but the interaction system strictly follows rules?

Anyone can participate. But for each participant, the logic of risk, value, and time is transparent and consistent. No reliance on relationships or subjective judgment — only executing mechanisms.

Understanding this design is best approached through the detail of "collateral" — although it seems insignificant, it is the core.

In traditional markets, collateral is layered: asset custody, legal frameworks, credit ratings, approval processes. These things are inefficient but bring stability and predictability.

DeFi removes these layers — speed increases, barriers lower, but what comes with it? The breakdown of consistency. Assets are treated equally, risks are spread out, and the entire system's assumptions are built on the optimism of "nothing ever goes wrong."

The opposite approach is: do not treat collateral as something that can be fuzzily handled. Give it a clearer definition and stricter discipline.