Did your company's crisis public relations course learn from P2P lightning platforms@ When DrPayFi users pointed out that your company's product design may have three major issues: fundraising, questionable customer qualifications, and abnormal interest rates, your company representative talked about the workplace chicken soup of Harvard part-time workers and cryptocurrency industry workers. What is the difference between this and the boss boasting about their newly bought Rolls Royce after eating cockroaches in a restaurant? To be honest, as a traditional financial practitioner, supply chain financing customers with an annualized rate of 10% have long been labeled as junk by risk control models in the eyes of banks. There are only two possibilities for your company to accept such customers: either the risk control system is paper and cannot screen out high-risk borrowers at all; Either they know it's a fire pit and package it as a wealth management product to transfer risks. After all, the decade long P2P boom in China has proven that when the return rate of a fund pool exceeds 8%, it is either a scam or a runaway. As for the so-called 'blockchain innovation', it is nothing more than exchanging offline high interest loans for stablecoins. AAVE dares to disclose on chain clearing data at least. Does your company dare to fully track the borrower's credit rating, bad debt rate, and collateral on chain? I'm afraid you can't even provide the most basic audit report on the flow of funds, can you? Finally, friendship science popularization: the real DeFi lending is excess mortgage+transparency on the chain, but what your company plays is fund pool fundraising+off chain black box, which is exactly the same way as the self financing fund pool was packaged as "Internet financial innovation" by eRent. It is recommended that your company's BD provide training to its employees on the list of P2P mining companies in China before the next floor cleaning, in order to at least minimize common sense errors. A piece of advice: Instead of resorting to academic discrimination and labeling in the comments section, it's better to focus on fixing the fatal flaws in the product. After all, in the encrypted world, code doesn't lie, but the funding pool will run away.