This penalty remains, yes?
From a user perspective, researching and ‘voting’ for a validator seems very, very, problematic to me on a currency that I’m hopefully going to be using to buy groceries and pay rent with, that I’m holding as dry powder ready to invest with.
It puts the user of cUSD in the position of having to regularly and constantly keep up with the reward rates available, the go through the process of choosing that validator in Valora and doing the Valora approval or maybe even having to switch wallets…
Seriously, would anyone here really do that work once a week or even once a month for your interest bearing checking account at the bank where you keep your fiat money?
If I, as a retail user, was expected to do that much work I’d probably be looking for a new bank.
Do you really think that work-a-day person in Columbia or the Phillipeans or Eastern Utah has the time or will or understanding to vote on this stuff.
Complexity is a bane and this looks like it’s going to be complex to use for non-nerds.
I really do see this as a fatal flaw.
I fully agree that if Celo’s stable coins paid interest there would be much greater demand. This is a truly worthwhile goal.
I do think though that the use case must be truly simple to be marketable and gain acceptance.
It should not take investment research and maintenance to run an electronic interest bearing checking account.
So, where’s the supporting data for this?
To me it seems like a fair number of assumptions and suppositions are being made without much testing/piloting of the idea.
I asked above for the results of any modeling and that hasn’t been put forward.
I’m going to quote from the other thread where I’ve been conversing with John and Ying.
I’d like to see this go 14 or 40 years.
There are other ways to provide interest to the stable coin holders.