I think there is a quite a bit of truth in speedrunning the history of finance. I don't see that per se as a negative, there is a lot of lessons that were learn

I think there is a quite a bit of truth in speedrunning the history of finance. I don't see that per se as a negative, there is a lot of lessons that were learnt for good reasons. Many of these lessons are still valid and some lessons are valid but do not need to be enforced through regulation because the cryptography behind takes cares of them programmatically. This is the main advantage that is being explored IMHO, that you can enforce through code things that before were dependent in a complex network of trust, institutions, auditing, and humans doing busy work and moving papers. The speedrunning part can in itself be an advantage as it allows to iterate quick until you reach maturity. But this is just my personal opinion and I can understand skepticism until these products prove their maturity. Regarding the comparisons you propose. I don't see how [1] is equivalent. The mechanics are quite different. In Alchemix you receive a lump-sum at the beginning and pay it back gradually through the protocol that is using your collateral to obtain yield in various yield-bearing assets. [2] is closer in spirit. But as far as I know you can get liquidated. You have a repayment schedule and if you don't meet your obligations then your collateral will be impacted. In Alchemix your collateral is locked bringing some yield, there is no fixed repayment schedule, it adapts based on the yield. Anyway, the point was not to promote any of these smart contract and I have no affiliation with any of them. It was simply to illustrate the OP that it's not vapor ware, it exists, is implemented and is working today. It's niche, it's not for everyone, but is not vapor ware.