A few comments on this great recap by @TokenBrice:
- Increasing reserve factors lowers the competitivity of the protocol against other solutions. Right now if we compare side by side Aave has better deposit and borrow rates than compound because the curve is more optimized. (here screenshots for comparison)
If we really need to adjust the reserve factors, i wouldn’t change more than a couple of percentage points, that would hardly make a difference anyway.
-
Lower the budget: i would agree on this, but not now. Let’s give it another 6 months. There will be a lot going on in 6 months from now and there will be good usage for additional aave rewards on L2s eventually. But till then, better to keep our leadership position.
-
Factor HF in the LM rewards - i would discard, too much work and centralizes the reward scheme
-
Adding vesting on LM rewards - i think here we should do a more accurate analysis of how many people actually unstake and sell after the claim - i think @alexandra had something here?
-
switching to straight AAVE rewards -what is the rationale behind this? @dydmoon
-
Factor asset utilization rate - hard to implement technically wise, i would discard
-
Review supported assets: 100% agree, but personally i wouldn’t remove GUSD - the percentage allocated to it is negligible anyway and it still brings stablecoins to the reserve factor. I would rather substantially reduce the rewards on WBTC and USDT, and shift some towards DAI, LINK and SUSD.