I would categorize this risk as high, being that Liquid has exposure to: Uniswap V3, Balancer, Aave V2/V3, Morpho Blue, and Curve/Convex. Withdrawals may also take up to 3 days in the Withdrawal queue
Hey @samehueasyou and thanks for putting this together!
Both of these strategies look directionally aligned with what Lazy Summer DAO historically supported. Transparent mechanics, strong integrations, and solid onchain traction. I’m generally in favor of moving this toward a SIP, with the usual caveat that we get @BlockAnalitica’s risk take on both before the promotion.
I also agree with @pete here regarding the ether.fi’s placement under the HR due to the withdrawal queue present, but again I am sure BA will review the factors necessary to set these strategies in place.
I’m finding it pretty difficult to weigh-in on these discussions given I can’t find a clear mandate of the type of collateral assets / yield benchmarks that would be considered for the LR and HR fleets. Are there any materials you can sign-post me to in this regard? If not i’d recommend developing those, not only would it help governors make informed decisions on yield strategies it might also reduce the amount of risk analysis BA have to complete for strategies which have little to no value to the protocol, speeding up the process for more appropriate strategies.
With regards to Clearstar’s reactor strategy it looks like the vault only has $35k in total deposits and has a mandate to ‘maximize ETH yields while fostering the growth of a wide range of collateral assets’. Given these facts while it currently has similar yields to the LST market rate and market exposure to ETHplus and stETH exclusively it’s difficult to know if that will remain the case once Summer Fi allocates to it.
I like for @BlockAnalitica to weigh-in on this but in my mind i’d prefer the LR fleet to curate a good foundation of tried and tested lower risk and lindy strategies before moving into the longer tail.