seeing a lot of confusion about Stream's self-looping, as law told everyone it was the same as @Frax /@InverseFinance /others' AMOs. It couldn't be more different. With an AMO, DOLA/FRAX is minted into e.g. @aave , and is backed by the *collateral of the third party borrower* (could be WBTC, ETH, etc.). If the borrower defaults on their debt, the *real* collateral is seized and traded for the 'un'backed debt token which is burned. Or, it might be AMO minted into an LP pool, and backed by the LP tokens themselves; to unwind the AMO you can just withdraw LP tokens, swap the other side of the LP for the debt token, and similarly burn it. Put simply, the AMO mints 'un'backed *DEBT* that is backed by the *COLLATERAL* of the third party. Stream was doing the opposite, minting unbacked *COLLATERAL* (xUSD) for backed *DEBT* provided by the third party (USDC/USDT), and then moving the debt to cexes. This is not an AMO, it's unsecured lending, masquerading as secured. This is even more concerning with the fact that the USDC/USDT debt here was borrowed to then run strategies where Stream kept the profits (but as we now see, not the losses!). Law admitted to this structure recently, that keeping the profit from the self loops allowed them to charge '0 fees' (mental gymnastics). So all this aptly coincides with Law telling everybody this is an on-chain hedge fund; a perfect analogy would be to just imagine what would happen to a traditional finance fund manager posting unbacked shares of his fund as collateral to borrow dollars that he used for his own personal trading!