Hi @sakulstra, apologies if the original comment was not clear.
We first want to clarify we do NOT consider the 65% LT outside of E-Mode as risky in regard to MATIC price volatility.
The reason for highlighting the usage of stMATIC compared to that of MaticX regards the discussion on setting more aggressive caps for LSDs, which are primarily used for borrowing the underlying asset .
In this scenario, as the oracles of the LSD (MaticX and stMATIC) follow the price of the underlying asset (MATIC), there is no risk of liquidation when borrowing the underlying asset against the LSD, leaving counterparty risk as the primary one. The community has voted to allow more aggressive caps in these cases here.
Following the vote, the proposal above recommends increasing the supply cap of stMATIC to 75% of its total circulating supply. However, as stMATIC is NOT used primarily as collateral to borrow MATIC, leads us to recommend not increasing the cap to more than 50% of the total circulating supply to mitigate concentration and liquidity risks, similar to our recommendations with other assets.
If we were able to set a separate cap for E-Mode, and given the community preference as voted on, we could recommend an additional increase for E-Mode use only, where the main risk would be counterparty risk.