There's an interesting dynamic between sources of orderflow on cross-margined lend-borrow markets and isolated lend-borrow markets. Let's say there's three types of orderflow : 1) Pure Lenders : just lend 2) Pure Borrowers : just borrow 3) Lend-borrowers : lend and borrow Lend-borrowers can only exist on cross-margined markets, which makes it a unique source of inflows for lending supply. And since often times the parameters (LTVs and Liquidation thresholds) are better for popular underlying assets (e.g., ETH) than their a yield bearing version (e.g., wstETH), we should see cases where lending yields become uncomfortably low for pure lenders of core underlying assets. This is because borrowers who lend in their margin account, don't singularly care about the risk adjusted returns of lending yields - they care about the risk adjusted returns of their entire strategy. So in some circumstances there will be lending yields that make sense for lend-borrowers, but not pure lenders. A counterbalancing flow is that of increased borrow demand from a larger strategy space. Borrowers have any pairing at their disposal, without unfragmented liquidity. On the other hand, isolated markets don't have any flow from lend-borrowers. Only pure lenders and pure borrowers. As a result, isolated markets need to focus on alternative innovations that target pure lenders and pure borrowers separately. For pure lenders, asset managers have become popular to abstract portfolio management away from depositors. This also helps new markets take off, as asset managers are well positioned to spot them early and slowly ramp up allocation as borrow demand grows. For pure borrowers, longer tail collateral types (e.g., fixed rate tokens) have began to unlock new strategies. These new strategies increase overall demand, similarly to how strategies unique to cross-margined markets.