TLDR
- Support dealing with the arb with current protocol nobs.
- Pull audit funds back to the USDC payer contract.
Description
The original burn design was meant to mitigate the arb in the short term, and it did so by burning BV in excess of recent auction prices immediately, with no delay.
The spec changed to give voters more coordination time, and that led to the burn no longer mitigating short term arb.
We spent time discussing additional changes to combine with the burn, e.g. require noun age to fork, and decided it’s all too complex and the problem can be solved with existing tools.
We wrote the arb analysis post after this realization, hoping to provide voters with a framework on how to take action with protocol as it currently is.
Since the burn in its current spec doesn’t solve the arb and seems to have lost some consensus and momentum, we suggest dropping it at least until the current arb problem is dramatically mitigated, i.e. BV is equal-ish to natural demand.
Once we’re in that reality we can revisit the value of adding the burn and certainly do so if there’s enough energy behind it!
Transaction
Withdraw the audit funds from the Tech Grants multisig back to the Payer contract, which is where the DAO holds USDC to fund proposals.
Thanks!
the verbs ⌐◨-◨
