@abipup I love you what a great idea.
Ditto to the general sentiment here that this is yet another strong policy OIP to help stabilize things when we dance around backing.
Numerous people here are bringing up the topic of what assets a bonder is going to receive. Please think carefully about this. One practical viewpoint to consider: every potential bonder is going to come to the table with his/her own biases - what is a bonder’s thought process going to be if they happen to not like XYZ asset Policy is offering up?
For example (using the first token in alphabetical order) what if Policy decides to offer up ALCX, and a bonder doesn’t like ALCX, or maybe the bonder loves ALCX but already has a bunch of it. They are going to be looking at this mechanism from the viewpoint of immediately liquidating the ALCX, which is going to effect the dynamic of the discount we end up seeing.
Policy “justification” / Policy communication / Policy analysis / Policy reporting should be a function of the premium over backing. In times like these, where, to put it bluntly, the market/community is skeptical of Policy, extra work should be done to convey your decisions. Please consider providing the community guidance on why a given asset is chosen or not chosen; bonders (and our partners) obv are going to prefer DAI over any other asset.
Case in point: if inverse bonds naturally will increase runway, can DAI be given out causing a net-zero runway gain? At least selling pressure would be reduced. Or maybe this wouldn’t work out due to some advanced analysis. I know it’s a lot of work producing these types of reports, but the transparency is key in sensitive times like these.
Thanks for all the work you and the Policy team are doing!