17) If you're worried about a 60% move causing liquidations in CREAM:
This has happened about once/month for the DeFi basket together recently.
FTT hasn't been at a 60% different price in 2020.
19) Well, it *is* less useful per $ than many of the other coins.
But I think the community is not correctly understanding the implications of banning that much of the collateral.
a) CREAM TVL down 30%
b) CREAM borrowing down 40%
c) Interest earned by lenders down 40%
20) No one will use CREAM for large size again -- it loses a lot of its future value.
(and, of course, some partners, liquidity, etc.)
I think this probably nukes something like 20% of the protocol's value.
21) That's a lot!
Giving up 20% of value based on an emotional, error-laden tirade to a single large voter for one of the lesser risks of the protocol.
Because some people don't believe in borrowing (on a borrow-lending protocol, none the less!)
22) So, yeah, this is a pretty crap-tastic proposal.
That being said -- I think some variants would be reasonable!
Want to decrease collateral to 40%? Want to cap any single asset at 20% of the total supply?
IDK if those are right, but they're totally plausible.
24) If that's what you want for CREAM--fine.
But also then why use CREAM and not Compound?
If you want a small, neatly curated list of assets in a static system, that's what Compound specializes in.
In CREAM, I see a dynamic, broader protocol, for better or for worse.
