I appreciate the critiques of a two capital pool solution. They are definitely valid.
But having a single pool where underlying asset exposure is determined by cover demand means exposure of capital providers is decided by cover buyers. Which seems very hard to reconcile for capital providers. As a capital provider you’d have to be completely price-neutral on ETH and a price-taker in either direction for it to make sense.
Whichever route we ultimately take (two pool seems unlikely given the difficulties regardless of merits); I strongly feel it needs to be agreed that any significant rebalancing of the underlying asset mix should take place only after there’s ample opportunity for ETH-long capital providers to exit.
If it’s urgent to rebalance and match exposure, then that should translate to added urgency to implement the new tokenomics revamp.