I can think of 4 alternatives that might help here; I will rank them in order of preference:
1: Each curator should maintain his FE; e.g. gauntlet.morpho.org
Approval of new extensions starts with a proposal in the forum; all curators are obliged to vote and give their reasons. Morpho would decentralize from its FE.
Going a little deeper here, the FE can integrate the Aragon vote of each curator, incentivising the user to get involved; I agree that very little importance has been given to this implementation, and it is a key paradigm shift in building immutable infrastructure.
Points here: More Morpho essence, less intervention.
2: Design a tool that controls every single parameter that is set, e.g. on-chain liquidity and volatility of lend and borrow assets; everything a curator needs to set can be parameterised, so a tool that includes all criteria should be buildable. Possibly complex as no one has built it and it would solve major defi issues.
ChainRisk and Gearbox have developed some monitoring tools that may have something to contribute here.
Points here: More Morpho essence, possibly an immutable sc, if it works it could be a good industry standard.
3: Hire an external provider, risk specialist; not linked to protocol management, e.g. ChaosLabs.
This seems to be the default option and easier/faster to implement.
Points here: Perhaps less cost effective, “could” be done now, less decentralised, creates dependencies.
4: A junior capital mechanism, based on what Maker/Sky are designing for subdata, could be an alternative, although potentially complex to implement for a FE whitelist alone.