I would assume “until amendments are needed or community doesn’t like the outcome”.
I guess success in this case would be:
- a decrease in (meaningless) governance proposal
- less situations in which caps are fully utilized & risk teams not being opposed a change. There should always be a clear reason on why a cap is utilized 100% that is not “aip is pending” or “aip is not yet created”.
With the same argument i guess you could argue against the 5 day delay? cbETH cap was filled in hours not days.
I think a 50% increase can be sufficient initial approach. While the fast-track allows up to 100% increase, realistically changes going through the aip process take rather 10 than 5 days due to various timing constraints.
Staying with the example of cbETH in the 10 days it took from arfc to onchain execution you could have in fact done 2 50% increases ending up with 30->45->67.5k (so even more than the current 60k 100% increase).
That said i’m not opposed 100% increase actually, just not sure if it’s needed as in most cases a 50% increase every 5 days should still be perfectly fine.