Overall in favor of offering more options along the risk curve.
A couple of suggestions:
- higher yielding strategies, especially token farming are often short lived. This could mean that for some strategies the engineering and risk effort is not worth the juice. Automating the on and off boarding as much as possible, and allowing third party providers to build the integration may speed up this process.
- simplicity should be at the core of Lazy Summer. A third and perhaps a fourth dollar denominated stablecoin might make sense in the short term, but offering ten+ does not seem like it would help users enjoy lazy risk adjusted yields.
- ultimately long term I see fintech integrators simply offering USD yield (so also the specific stablecoin abstracted away), in maybe three risk settings.
- Any user will want to be able to understand the differences in risk between options in a clear cut way. I think some of the metrics proposed here by @samehueasyou are already great, and can be iterated on.
- Testing other risk strategies by doing e.g. one stablecoin and one eth version, especially when undertaking leveraged/swapping strategies allows testing those strategies thoroughly.
- the suggestion to begin with strategies that allow a higher percentage to be allocated and using strategies on already integrated protocols sounds like a great start. Publishing a backtest whether the strategy would actually be rewarding better than the current strategies should help adoption.