Thanks for posting.
I've been mostly silent on this RFC and proposal until now but share(d) many of the same concerns as others with respect to mechanism and viability of the DAO and protocol. This updated proposal framework is a step in the right direction, potentially providing forward for the DAO while enhancing the protocol's attractiveness and security. I'll follow up with a thorough post, but have a few questions / comments that I'd like to have addressed prior to that:
1. Can you please clarify the mechanism by which cooler loans will roll over from period to period? How are treasury funds moved over from contract to contract? How is the new loan amount determined?
2. Unit of account/governance: given that OCG can still be designed for OHM rather than gOHM, would it be possible to denominate the loans in OHM? Would prefer to see a consistent unit of account if it doesnt mess with governance too much.
3. OHM Supply and the Migrator: I find it difficult to evaluate the appropriate level for the cooler loans given that we do not have a clear picture of the true supply and therefore the true backing per OHM (and therefore the margin of safety implied here for each level). There is a significant supply of OHMv1 that has not been migrated to date, almost 18 months after the migration was initiated. This may be controversial, but I'd like to start a conversation around setting a deadline for migration, with ample warning, so that we can move forward with a clear picture of supply. This need not necessarily delay the cooler process, but can happen in parallel perhaps with a staged deployment of cooler loans at different levels.