Thanks for explicitly distinguishing capacity indications from committed facilities in Section 4.3, and for making SLA verification a pre-activation condition.
The initial supply cap limits the scale of the exposure. Building on that, when the SLAs are finalized, could you publish a short summary of how the committed financing compares with the repayment requirement it is intended to cover?
Three items would make that comparison useful for an independent assessment:
-
Coverage target. What dollar repayment requirement must the commitments cover, over what horizon, and under which assumptions? For example, is the target all outstanding debt at the initial cap, or the repayments triggered by a specified stress scenario?
-
Deployable financing. What minimum amount in the required stablecoins is committed to HINC, and how quickly must it be available after a defined trigger? Where capacity is shared with other assets, what portion can HINC rely on?
-
Capacity while redemptions are pending. Section 2.3 already explains that settlement may take longer than T+1. How long can committed funding remain outstanding, and can further liquidations be financed before earlier redemptions settle, or does capacity replenish only after cash returns?
A public summary of these terms and assumptions would be sufficient; there is no need to disclose private contracts or trading strategies. It would let readers compare required repayments with usable financing without counting the same capital twice during overlapping liquidations.
I have written down the four-test sequence discussed here in a worked wstETH assessment. The connection is the distinction between calculating the repayment requirement and verifying the financing available to meet it, not a transfer of the wstETH numerical results to HINC.