There’s not really any rush with the migration right?
- Weekly 3% reduction in LTV and LT for USDC.e
Therefore any $ of liquidation seems unexpected and “to much”.
Why in the conservative scenario you would increase the USDC.e borrow cap?
- (Depending on community preference) A conservative borrow/supply cap of 80% of circulating token supply onchain or an aggressive borrow/supply cap of 120% of circulating token supply onchain
I generally don’t understand that plan - why would you randomly increase supply & borrow caps for an asset not even 50% utilized? I guess risk stewards could do that on demand when risk-teams see fit? To me this doesn’t seem to make any sense.
With LSTs - where looping is a big thing-, there have been(i guess still are) big discussions about <= 50% of circulating supply. What would justify setting supply to 120% of circulating for an asset that is not even utilized?
If the community is aligned on off-boarding, wouldn’t the rational thing be to just freeze USDC.e, or even less intrusive set the caps below the current supply/borrow, lower ltv or similar?