I would echo @hodlmao above. 75%/25% stable/volatile is too conservative imo. Possible framework:
1. The community adopts the position that stables are kept solely for the purpose of supporting the lower cushion of RBS. If there are other use cases for stables the community likes these could be factored in.
2. Using historical data on the cost of IBs, we estimate how much it would cost to maintain the lower cushion for a year + some insane error term. For example; imagine IBs cost $2M for the past year (idk the actual number). Plus a 5,000% margin for error means we need $100M stables in the treasury. The different parameters can be modelled for the community to evaluate and vote on.
3. When reserve bonds are turned back on, they are only on for stable assets until we reach that threshold of $200M. After that its purely ETH, wBTC and whatever strategic assets we may want (CVX, BAL etc)
I like this framework because it links treasury management to RBS, its programmable but with room for DAO discretion, its data driven and it provides forward guidance for the market. It would make OHM backing more volatile. Worth it imo. I personally think no stable asset is gonna be big enough AND decentralized enough until OHM gets biig.
The question then is what stables to hold. There's not many suitable options out there but we do have room to increase LUSD exposure. What's the most of their mcap we can hold without being seen as a risk by the liquity team?