I agree in principle to what Zeus is saying. It does seem there is an appetite of LUSD holders to bond and add LP for OHM. Fully support adding depth, diversifying away from DAI into a LUSD governance light/minimal type stable coin.
With the Tokemak reactor starting in a couple of weeks: OHM-ETH depth will be needed and supported by Tokemak ignition.
I’m against selling out of any stable coins. The phenomenon of Olympus being a black hole of value is something I’m proud of. Rebalancing delta neutral (“cash-like equivalent”) would be poor. We already convinced individual investors to give us the assets, why would we return it to the marketplace?
In terms of the amount of the capacity change: I’d lean on policy recommendations. Does Zeus speak for the policy team and risk team here? Should we assume it is a homogeneous voice from the DAO that the capacities of OHM-DAI, OHM-Frax should be stifled to steer LUSD demand? It seems like the recent policy changes to emphasize LUSD been a huge revenue catalyst, so maybe the effectiveness has been noted and therefore this change should be codified. Policy team- please provide some feedback if Zeus’s evaluation on the recommended capacity changes speak for the team as a whole.
All in all, I read a proposal like above and get fired up. This is exciting. Taking on ETH: the most liquid liquidity pair head on and adding OHM depth throughout the DEFI space is a huge step in changing the paradigm of pairing assets with OHM. OHM and ETH: blurring the lines of asset versus currency. I’m very interested to see how the markets appetite is for giving/handing over ETH before the not so absurd run up to 10k to moon bois blow off top of 150k per Eth.
Cheers!