Mini rant on Bitcoin-collateralized lending protocols that claim to be "non-custodial" using DLCs. These protocols look good on the surface, but once you dig into the mechanics of how DLCs actually work it turns out that they are offering something more custodial than advertised... DLCs require a "neutral oracle" in order to adjudicate a loan - this is an oracle that is incentivized to not exploit the protocol and that no interested parties have control over (that 2nd part is key). Nobody has yet succeeded in building a neutral oracle, AFAIK - this is a very hard problem to solve. Most DLC-based protocols act as the oracle themselves, meaning that they have full control over whether or not a user's funds are liquidated vs returned. That is hardly “non-custodial” or "trustless". It's not to say that these "captive DLC" protocols are a bad solution - the market needs different approaches to Bitcoin liquidity. But this a massive security tradeoff that users need to be educated about upfront. Transparency is key. This is ultimately why @GraniteBTC was built on @Stacks using sBTC - the original intent was to build it using DLCs but the oracle problem proved insurmountable. I would love to be proven wrong here, as actually unlocking DLCs would be meaningful for Bitcoin. I just haven’t seen anyone crack the oracle problem yet, so I’ll believe it when I see it.