From a risk management perspective, we do not agree that caps should consistently be increased. More specifically, our process is not “let’s continuously increase caps to allow for more growth over time.” This is not proper risk management.
My critics was not, about “not updating caps”
If risk allows, would imo be good to adjust the caps accordingly.
To quote my statement from other threads regarding the topic.
My critics are about not initiating the discussion about these assets at all, which i would expect risk teams to do.
BAL, CRV, MAI have been utilized around 100% on polygon v3 since December last year while some other assets had no caps at all (some still don’t have and some others had the arbitrary 2B caps which is a bit ridiculous as well).
Some of these things have been changed by aci, chaos and llama(if i followed proposals correctly), but gauntlet took till mid-February to e.g. have a stance on MAI (which essentially said, “we would have been fine with more”, so doesn’t seem like the risk was holding back) [ARFC] increase borrow cap for MAI Aave Polygon V3 - #5 by Pauljlei
In the gauntlet renewal, missing proactivity was pointed out as one of the concerns. In my eyes this is one manifestation of it.
That said, I have no risk expertise and think all parties involved do good work - my complained is about missing proactivity, not the results, which i cannot judge.
Anyhow let’s not derail this discussion to much as it’s about stMATIC specifically not caps generally.