Unresolved concerns

• Whether reducing rewards to stablecoin recursive-leverage farming actually curbs farming overall or just displaces it into other collateral markets, inflating their borrow rates.— trader-geo, jthrack, aklamun
• Governance allocation decisions are effectively made by a small number of large holders, raising decentralization/legitimacy concerns about the process itself.— Fishbtc
• Whether protocol reserves and a treasury (funded by reduced COMP emissions or direct COMP sales) should be prioritized alongside or instead of speed recalibration was raised but explicitly deferred to a separate discussion.— Sirokko, jthrack
• Design of a vesting or 'anti-farmer' penalty/staking mechanism to complement speed changes remained conceptual and unresolved.— mrhen, massnomis, jthrack
• The inability to set different supplier/borrower split ratios (e.g., 75/25 for collateral markets) without a protocol code change was acknowledged as a limitation but left as a future improvement rather than resolved.— Sirokko, rleshner

Notable participants

• rleshnerOpened the thread with guiding questions, synthesized community feedback into a baseline allocation proposal, and closed the thread noting the changes were enacted via Proposal 035.
• tarunGauntlet researcher who proposed a rigorous experimental/hypothesis-testing framework and provided data analysis on recursive borrowing to inform allocation choices.
• SirokkoProvided a detailed alternative allocation model with a fixed baseline per market plus targeted incentives, and argued extensively for treasury/reserve considerations.
• jthrackAdvocated for net borrow/supply rate balancing and reallocating COMP toward development or treasury diversification to reduce farming incentives.
• aklamunReframed the debate around decentralization of ownership as the primary goal and proposed a max(lend reward, borrow reward) mechanism to curb recursive leverage.
• haseebqStrongly endorsed moving away from the arbitrary status quo toward an optimized, data-informed emission rate.
• lay2000lbsRepresented a cautious, status-quo-leaning viewpoint urging minimal changes.
• FishbtcRaised concerns about governance centralization and the optics of manual reallocation by a small group of holders.
• massnomisCriticized the pace and rigor of the governance process and called for a more dynamic, decentralized economic model before passing changes.
• dabar90Highlighted opportunity costs for ETH holders and questioned Compound's user growth relative to competitors, supporting reduced stablecoin incentives.