I am not supportive of this proposal unless everyone can withdraw equally. For example, let’s say the arbitrary cutoff is 50% collateralization. Then someone with 75% is able to sell up to 1/3 of their investment, and someone with 50% collateralization is not able to sell any. Even though we say 10% is necessary for protocol security.
This is just as bad as before in terms of effect. But instead it penalizes NOs that have less RPL even more because their RPL remains illiquid while others’ RPL is unlocked, causing even greater pressure on the value of their RPL. I don’t think a small burn would be enough to compensate. After all, whales and speculators would be benefiting from burns too.
Worse, it also means that someone who prioritized minipools over RPL collateralization is punished more also, since it puts them below the arbitrary cutoff and keeps all their RPL illiquid while others, with half their ETH invested in Rocket Pool minipools and the other half deposited to Lido stETH, are given the special privilege of liquidity. This is the case today but the effect would be more visible with this change.
Edit: I think it’s interesting that you mention “Rocket Pool has a visceral distaste of rent seeking”. If you could link me to where the team has mentioned this, I would appreciate it. Because the team knows the true reason RPL exists, and they are definitely taking rent, every few days in fact.
Edit 2: It looks like the arguments I was trying to make only apply to this other thread Reduce Maximum RPL Collateralization rate to 75% over time - #24 by NickS sorry about that