And also in removing tokens; if Maker or any of these other protocols we were to select end up removing a token; or pausing taking on more of a specific token for any reason, I think we should to be able to respond quickly & follow suit (if need be).
what would put us in a situation like that how could we respond quickly?
it’s sort of like a google search engine approach, where we’re sourcing a foundation from multiple respective protocols to on-board and to select a pause.
I look at the distinction between reacting and responding as when you react it’s a knee-jerk reaction and it’s like muscle memory and we don’t necessarily think about it;
whereas when you respond to something it involves thought and in this instance we have an opportunity to proactively think in advance when we’re creating the requirements to take on a token; what our methodology should be when we want to consider removing/ pausing a token.
and how does that happen what does that look like, because we’re going to still have tokens That are already in the mix; so I think what happens is you end up saying hey we’re just gonna pause taking on those tokens at this moment, until we can visit the situation in more depth, though it’s something we want to be able to respond to quickly.
so I almost think in some instances as if it meets certain criteria that we should be able to pause the continued onboarding of specific tokens & Then put it to a vote — sort of like where the guardians you know it’s like 2 AM and JayDubb is awake in Australia has to make an executive decision on a post & I know this is entirely different than a post on a message board; though in some ways it isn’t.
it’s like Game of Thrones you know where you’ve got the ‘Lord Commanders of the Night’s Watch’ — looking out for the white walkers.
i’m just saying — we should have a plan in place that allows us to respond quickly & if we wait and use a more deductive approach to vote on an initial pause — our voting to approve — could be too late. so who pushes the button and under what criteria?
just remember UST and Luna, If a situation like that is unfolding quickly, we want to be able to hit the pause button, versus taking on more of a liability & yeah it’s totally different, but you know three arrows capital and Luna there was a time that wasn’t that long ago where they were fully respected & then very rapidly things changed. so, we wanna be ready when things happen because things do happen, as we’ve seen. The landscape changes in the landscape we know today can be entirely different tomorrow; like that of an ocean.
So says a 24 hour pause (on what criteria though??); does that make sense? and what would the residual impact of doing that be, if we were to pursue that type of a strategy.
— we also want a corresponding PR message to be sent out, so that the community and the people that use the protocol understand the logic & people that have tokens inside should always be able to get them and take them out; depending on their situation (have to pay liquidation fees — if it’s an early liquidation, etc) you know what I mean.
I know I’m looking at it from a backwards approach, though sometimes looking at an idea from different angles makes it more versatile & stronger; improves the reflexivity of the idea overall.
