My thoughts on the Jupiter collateral scandal. There are two possible explanations: 1. Jupiter team truly did not understand what isolated collateral means. The way collateral is treated is literally the *most* important risk parameter in a lending protocol. If they don't understand this core tenant of lending markets, what else don't they understand? Are they competent enough to trust with your deposits? Not understanding what isolated collateral means is completely unforgivable for a lending protocol, so maybe there is an alternative explanation: 2. The alternative to incompetence is that the Jupiter team was actively misrepresenting a core part of their protocol in order to mislead users and attract deposits. Which is worse?

What do you call it when you raise money from new investors to pay existing investors?