Hello, thank you for such a thorough opinion.
I think its pretty obvious that a stablecoin provider wants to lend its own asset, not another one. Furthermore, PAR is far more stable than implied.
However, if you are worried about a risk of depeg, you should see this more as an opportunity to pay back the loan cheaper than anything else as the DAO will not be holding PAR for other reasons than paying back the loan.
-
Concerning slippage, we have found a pathing to get down to 0.6% slippage, which is acceptable for such quantity.
-
I am not sure which issues could happen with a 3/3 MS concerning the PoL management could you expand? This is clearly a a detail that can be modified further down the like.
-
Regarding the loan term, its for 12 months with monthly interest expected to be paid, but I haven’t gotten any answers yet on paying back in anticipation
-
Finally, on the subject of PoL vs CVX, I heavily disagree. A lender will prefer liquid assets, and having someone with liquidation power own half or more of the PoL means he can reduce our liquidity to smitherens if worst comes through. We believe it is much better for us to swap to CVX and lock on the liquidator’s MS, and then delegate to paladin-voter.eth if possible. Similarly while I agree we should swap the Quest fees to stablecoin, I disagree that we should use them now to reduce the loan size.
Instead we should focus on building a stablecoin treasury to either swap out the assets used as collateral, reimburse the loan in anticipation, or simply prepare the capital necessary to pay it back in full in 12 months.
Vote will be up once we have the info on repayment options.