As a high level remark to focus the discussion, the initial goal (per the secret master plan) is to gain market leadership, as most of the long-term profits will go to the victor. That said, the LM program ending is an issue - but the hope is that the high-retention AUV has grown significantly enough that it can be eventually sustainable. In the interim, it may be more advantageous to focus on 1) increasing user retention (keeping as much capital as possible), 2) increasing the sales / marketing, and 3) getting adoption by improving the product reasonable.
To reiterate some user concerns, users have stressed the following issues:
- Fees are too high: Some people think 0.95% is too high.
- The opportunity cost of farming is too high: They can own the underlying and put the capital to better productive use by farming the underlying themselves
The considerations are:
- Putting the capital to work via staking, farming, etc. can offset the fees and reduce the opportunity cost.
- The ways capital is put to work varies vastly in terms of yield, risk, time-locked, etc. All productive capital is not equal!
- Putting capital to work could disqualify DPI from getting added to lending protocols, an important enabler of use cases.
I think the main missing piece of data to help make a judgment call is 1) what factors would absolutely exclude an asset from lending protocol inclusion? 2) how can we quantify the growth / retention opportunity with this opportunity?