Fully in support of this (with some suggestions).
Supply and borrow caps are critical in my opinion in practice in 2 aspects:
- On listing of a new asset. Depends a lot on the asset, but the caps are a perfect generalized constraint to cover almost any wide problem for the pool. This right now is totally controlled by the “normal” governance framework, as caps definition is part of the listing.
- On first raise of cap. Here the rationale of the raise should be quite strict, as there should be a clear reason on why the caps should be different: maturity (assets with long history, where first cap was cautious protection) or technical changes on the asset (e.g. removal of minting capabilities).
After those, and exceptions apart, usually the process can be streamlined. The Avalanche scenario is completely clear:
- Initial cap due to being a new pool deployed (v3), not even because of the nature of the assets themselves.
- Pool with some maturity, known assets, raise of caps.
- Current $2B supply cap on USDC, no difference in practice on having $4B.
So basically the governance framework is just a blocker at the moment in terms of growth for this specific case, without any need, and that should never happen. So fully agree on the proposal by @MarcZeller, but I would also propose the following changes:
- This process can only be applied to assets listed for at least 2 weeks.
- Supply & Borrow caps can be increased from 30% to 100%. There should be a proper reason to go to the highest tier.
- The process should take maximum 4 days. Meaning that in networks currently with Guardian, the Guardian should prepare the signing in advance, to assure execution not more than 24h after Snapshot closes positively.