Yes, thus my emphasis on how LPs primary decision factor is "risk-weighted yield". The problem with convincing LPs to choose one dApp over another on the basis of security is that you need concrete data, otherwise it won't resonate. The abstract technical security arguments are very hard to land on LPs, Aave was considered the ideal perfect DeFi app for the past few years, true fully on-chain governance, system designed from the ground up to prioritize the safety of LP funds, dynamic rates that adjust with demand and provide additional economic security, a massive multimillion dollar reserve for insurance against exploit risk, 6 independent smart contract audits from the most well respected auditing firms in the entire blockchain space, and so on; pristine track record of no exploits. The same was true about most other blue-chip DeFi protocols. But now, things are very different, the cracks are showing, blue-chip dApps are being hacked left and right, and the goal no longer requires convincing LPs about highly technical security tradeoffs it's as simple as showing them concretely the absence of exploits on our dApps. The caveat is that there are two types of risk, if smart contract and contagion risks are lower, but economic market risk is higher (ie. lenders and LPs are not sufficiently protected, illiquid assets are allowed as collateral, automatic liquidations are not fast enough in during flash crashes, DEXs don't support concentrated liquidity, stableswap pools aren't actually stable, and so on) then even if smart contract and contagion risks are lower LPs may assess risk-weighted yield opportunities here as bad. So, yes, we definitely can attract LPs with slightly lower (or even meaningfully lower, 20-25%) yield, if TOTAL risk to LPs is lower (including smart contract risk, contagion risk, and market risks). Prioritize: LPs cannot lose money (due to market / smart contract risk / contagion risk / exploits) Then: How much yield LPs make Then: outputs of this dApp can be used as inputs in another yield generating dApp Then: the opportunity cost (lockup / deposit / withdrawal fees / dApp fees)

It doesn't matter what CF is asking money for, it matters what CF is spending money on. CF continues to spend money in the same exact domains as the CAP tracks above, and on the CAP itself. Traceability: Reeve Identity: Veridian ... The Brick Towers & DFX swiss pilot, where once again CF paid institutions to adopt Cardano to deliver a pilot with zero users, zero demand, and zero on-chain transactions. Go read the case study. Significant investment into MembersCap so that tokens issued through Archax on Cardano can trade inside their regulated framework (KYC, so forth). I don't know if you guys know this, but we have something called decentralized exchanges on Cardano, and there you can trade any token without middleman fees, without the risk of your funds vaporizing due to corporate fraud or negligence (FTX, Celsius). And the great thing about these decentralized exchanges is that they are already building on Cardano, aligned with Cardano, they already have users, revenue, volume, and contribute to Cardano KPIs. Why would anyone want to trade RWAs or tokenized assets inside a regulated exchange on a blockchain when they already can trade those assets on their preferred non-blockchain financial instruments, cheaper, faster, and with better UX and support? Did anyone look at the TAM of this? The total volume? The number of users on such platforms compared to Uniswap, Curve, or Raydium? All of this money evaporates into thin air with zero users, and CF continues to blow their runway paying enterprises and institutions year after year without any traction, meanwhile leaving all our DeFi apps out to slowly die. CF has hundreds of millions of Ada. Do you know what they are not doing with it? Literally anything. Ethereum foundation deployed $120M into DeFi lending protocols in 2025 alone, earned money for themselves, supported their dApp ecosystem, and demonstrated that indeed you can do more with ETH than just dump it. CF just accumulates staking rewards then sells for USD / BTC or other assets to pay for their runway or whatever enterprise they are greasing up. What statement does that make to others about how they should use their Ada? Why would any liquidity provider deploy capital on Cardano if the Cardano foundation doesn't? Why would anyone actually use the applications on our chain if the Cardano foundation doesn't?