Supporting CNTs such as discussed here are greatly simplified compared to OADA/sOADA. Mostly these are native tokens via the native script feature, and have a fixed supply. Centralisation of tokenomics and low DEX liquidity have previously been reasons for denial. E.g SNEK, despite being a memecoin, has:
- almost as much ADA in its LP pool as OADA ADA deposits,
- a guaranteed fixed supply,
- and a low risk rating.
Supporting synthetics and other DeFi tokens outside of butane should be considered with high scrutiny, given the high risk they pose.
The flexibility of OADA modules via governance gives rise to ambiguity on backing. Despite the liquidity benefits, it is also Pandora’s box that once supported in a collateral market, the OPTIM DAO may mint unlimited unbacked assets, and it would be difficult to reel in. Outside of that social risk, @dub is correct about smart contract risk that would need to be examined.
sOADA as the higher risk variant (as @DeFi-Optimist says, takes on the systematic risk) shouldn’t be used as collateral for our core synthetics (USD, BTC, fiat stables), but could perhaps be used for margin tokens, or other cryptocurrency markets.
“Infinite liquidity” sounds quite like marketing nonsense, minting infinite OADA to us isn’t useful. Liquidators will want to access ADA not OADA, which is constrained by the ADA/OADA splash pool and its liquidity.