If we accept that the MCR floor scaling is a temporary measure to get us to 100k ETH then I feel like this is over-engineering. Alternatively, if we want MCR floor scaling to continue for much longer then this is a reasonable approach.
My preference is to get to the goal of f(cover amount) driving the MCR, rather than the floor value, sooner and therefore I’m on the over-engineering side of this debate. As this is more capital efficient.
To expand on this, if we go with your suggestion it means the mutual is more likely to sit on excess capital for longer, as cover purchases would need to catch up with capital. The two main downsides of this are:
- possibility of not being able to maintain existing existing capital as it searches for higher yields elsewhere
- much lower likelihood of the token price moving into the exponential section of the bonding curve in the short term.
The key benefits are:
- more capital and ability to offer higher cover amounts per protocol
- ability to access demand not previously available as cover amounts too low.
So conceptually if we describe the capital scaling phase as short term pain for long term gain, your suggestion is extending the pain phase on the assumption that the potential future gains would be greater. At some point this trade-off doesn’t work, and it’s hard to work out where that point is. 100k ETH, 200K ETH? I honestly don’t know, so I’m not outright against this, it’s a difficult judgement call.
All things considered, my view is that 100k would go a long way to meeting current demand and we should firstly consolidate demand for cover at this level and therefore this suggestion is likely over-engineering.