Reduce Maximum RPL Collateralization rate to 75% over time

My initial stance for any change is “How does it help the protocol” – if I don’t get a clear answer, I strongly prefer to leave it alone. Changes requires analysis ahead of time, and our analysis can be wrong leading to unintended consequences, so I think it’s proper to lean against changes.

The discussion in terms of NO advantages

Here I don’t see an advantage to the protocol suggested. I see 2 conveniences to NOs suggested (less dilution for low collateral folks, being able to withdraw with less growth via appreciation or yield).

For RPL yield: that’s double-edged. High-collateral folks would lose out - so this is a benefit to some NOs at the direct cost of other NOs.

For being able to withdraw with less growth: that’s also double edged. Right now, if NOs want to rebalance, they’d have to exit. If NO demand is long-term greater than rETH demand, as is expected by many including myself, then this would drive some turnover and let others participate. In this case, it’s a benefit to incumbent NOs at the cost of potential NOs.

I included the spoilered discussion there, but it’s really not my main point. My main point is that we should focus on protocol level benefits, health, risk, etc, which hasn’t been addressed here. To me, we’d be taking on a risk for no benefit.

6 Likes