'If the collateral were to be exchanged for bitcoin prior to you defaulting then the lender would not have a problem because they are still protected. There is no logical reason why any lender would object to you not selling your shitcoin.'
Maybe I would never suggest that an escrow buy or sell a collateral that is supposed to, collateralize my loan?
Like I said if the escrow were to sell the collateral for bitcoin then the loan would still be collateralized, but the lender would be more protected, and you would still have been able to execute a trade that you would have made if your NOBL was not being held in collateral. No one losses in this scenario.
If I have not stated it in the OP, then maybe it's not something you should presume to 'need to be there'. How about 'it's not there, and thus isn't part of the agreement'?
Interesting real risks are 'created' and my own risks are 'at the expense of legitimacy' LOL
I take it by the lack of your response that you are not going to make any counter point to my statement.
You still have not addressed how a lender is suppose to sell the 6.4
BTC worth of your shitcoin when you default without crashing the price. The 24 hour trading volume across all exchanges is less then 1/4 the amount that would need to be sold