I’m sorry, I really don’t want to come off as antagonistic but isn’t then the only use case for GLM to pay for/be rewarded for processing power? There is no DAO, there is no on-chain governance? There is basically no reason for someone to hold this token, unless they’re planning to purchase processing power? So the only borrowing use case would be if I want to purchase processing power right now and speculate that the price of GLM will go down in the future, so that I can rebuy and repay at a more favourable $ value?
The token contract being non custodial is good. But I don’t quite get the point of voting by migrating? Wouldn’t it then be a bit concerning that within a full year, only 55% have migrated and the rest have seemingly forgotten about their holdings? And how would you integrate that into a risk analysis? A risk analysis is in ANY case just a snapshot of the current risk. It can change in the future, yes. But that isn’t what’s being evaluated. Right now GLM has 14k holders. GNT holders are irrelevant. Perceived lesser risk in the future is irrelevant.
The social consensus of the grid computing platform is not at issue. It doesn’t really have anything to do with the token. Counterparty risk assesses if some entity or governance attack would be able to mess with the token contract. An example would be infinite minting of GLM. If Golem Factory GmbH has no control over the token contract - who does?