I agree with what you said about being anti cypherpunk, but the other two are a stretch imo. The founding fathers surely all took loans against their collateral at one point or another and Austrian economics leaves plenty of room for banks to operate however they and the market see fit. I'm sure many bitcoiners will get their stacks wiped out by doing this and it's completely their choice to take that risk or not. Thats the free market. I don't see Bitcoin backed loans the same way I see mortgages or car loans for two reasons primarily. One is that anyone taking a bitcoin backed loan is never in debt. They are making a trade by paying interest and staking collateral (that's potentially the anti cypherpunk part) If the loan fails they don't end up in shackles, they just lose their collateral. Looking at these products from another angle you can see that they are enabling anyone to engage in a speculative attack. The more this is done effectively the faster fiat dies and it results in less Bitcoin being available on the open market. I don't think there's anything to get worked up over at the moment. If we found out that strike was using collateral to get into a short position that would be a huge scandal, but they aren't that stupid.