Firstly, I want to acknowledge the work you’re doing and how important it is to highlight these situations that are not easy to manage publicly. I agree with the risk analysis taken by Maker in this decision, especially as you mention the operation’s volume in relation to the issued stablecoins.
I concur with Deepcryptodive that setting the LTV to 0% might be an overly conservative measure. I believe that even in the event of problems, we are talking about a percentage of their collateral, and moreover, with the growth plans the project has with the EndGame strategy, it’s possible that this risk could be mitigated with the addition of more collateral. In that sense, I think that with this change, such decisions at Maker will initially be addressed by the subdao. Besides, having DAIs in the farming strategy that is going to be developed could open additional profitability opportunities for the project. I believe we should leave that door open to MakerDAO by managing the risk.
Disclaimer: I have been an ambassador for the MakerDAO foundation and have an excellent relationship with the team