Although I am joining late in the discussion, I would like to reiterate Nexo Commitment to remain both a large token holder and the single largest borrower on the platform. With the funds we have available on Maker, we have put a long-term vote of confidence into the ability of the protocol and it’s community & team to deliver a competitive solution and keep our funds safe.
For the purposes of the Nexo vault, we are expanding Defi access to multiple teams & team members and expanding the access for rebalancing purposes to cover 20+ hours via the Nexo proffesional lending/trading desk. Initially, it is our intention to keep collateral above 200% as we have always done and with time to automate away any manual rebalancing in conjunction with Nexo trading, liquidation & lending infrastructure as we become more capital efficient.
In addition, most importantly, we are already working out the internal systems necessary to conduct on-chain automated collateral management and rebalancing procedures (e.g if collateral <180% - deposit additional ETH).
We realize there is no way to sign legal agreements with the protocol. Nevertheless, as part of our commitment to warrant the development of institutional vaults we can provide official statements through Signed Letter of Intent & Term sheets. In this platform terms, durations & other important parameters will be available and although not enforceable by law, Nexo would incur reputational penalty upon reneging on such an agreement.
To address an earlier comment, considering wBTC & ETH as collateral, there is strong preference for BTC collateralization whenever possible. Due to the wrapped nature of BTC, we would eventually reach a limit in our wBTC allocation, which would mean that in the end ETH would remain the collateral of choice.
When it comes to collateral options, We would like to very strongly advocate for stETH (Lido), as well as additional assets available to us, incl. NEXO native token, UNI, LINK, etc.
Finally, to address changes in vault parameters, as far as I understand maximum increases will not be heart coded and dialogue with protocol teams will be at the heart of any parameter change discussions moving forward, taking into account market conditions, our own needs, balance sheet and other details. Through the power of open dialogue we should both be able to optimize different policy objectives, such as DAI minting, revenue for the protocol, etc.
Hopefully I have managed to address most concerns, but happy to elaborate on any other issues raised by the community.