The council would like to provide feedback on the proposal outlined as requested by our mandate in OIP-91. We are supportive of innovative and new products using OHM, and we agree with Zeus that credit markets are an important focus to highlight OHM's strengths. However, we have a few points that require further attention.
First, the timeline proposed is too ambitious. We recommend taking more time to consider the economic impact of this proposal, assess the treasury allocation, and verify the contract's security. A more realistic timeline would be in the best interests of all parties. We do agree with a staggered timeline which would allow for an in-depth analysis after a first phase to assess if further adjustments or deployment is to be considered.
Second, the treasury should only be deployed into verified and preferably audited contracts. While we recognize that not all audits are equal, we suggest engaging a trusted third party, ideally through a community-sourced platform like Immunify/Code4rena, to audit the contracts. This has proven to be the most effective approach in the past.
Third, we request more clarity on the approval process for loans under this model. An AMA with the community, in addition to a more detailed discussion on this forum, could be beneficial for addressing these questions.
Finally, we would like to explore any potential synergies with other partners in this space, such as the recently posted Vendor proposal.
We would like to note that although Zeus is a current member of the council, this proposal did not originate from the council or the DAO, and all governance procedures will be strictly followed, as with all other proposals.