@bred has a solid point concerning the raise of LT, that is why I’m, if not completely against a small raise, but highly skeptical.
90% should be completely out of question, it’s 5% over ETH itself. 85% is still probably too high, being the same as ETH, and factually only done to have some more protection on the current opened position, which is not really a valid rationale if it doesn’t protect against an important system-wide risk.
In my opinion, the protocol/market should be able to bear a potential liquidation of the 2 most “risky” positions, accounting for ~200’000 stETH, but which probably would be liquidated progressively. That assuming those parties don’t find any solution to protect their position in that scenario (not so likely, hopefully for them).
On one thing I agree, the previous raise of LT stressed out already the margin of protecting positions, done exclusively because with the first “depeg”, it was important to activate some lever. But we should be mindful that all rest of the users of the protocol should not get affected by a small subset taking a bit more risk.
P.S. about not enabling borrowing, it was chosen by the proposer, both because they didn’t see an important use case and because of the required technical changes on the debtToken ARC: Add support for stETH (Lido)
I don’t think precisely right now is the appropriate moment, but I agree that should be enabled in the future, once the market is a bit more stable.