I will leave for liqwid if this is proposed is passed as it is the singular advantage this inflexible buggy protocol has is it doesn’t charge interest but a fixed fee for withdrawal.
My whole argument is that this “inflexible buggy protocol” (as you put it) is that way because all it has is a fixed fee for withdrawal that doesn’t provide any incentive whatsoever to behave in a way that would maintain iAsset peg and doesn’t generate any revenue to help with such incentives from “forever open loans.” This is one way that something like the Redemption Pool that I also proposed could be funded. Maintaining peg is important for a number of reasons that I’ve already highlighted here, but least of all it makes the shorting that many are doing more efficient everywhere. So do you think that people are willing to short iUSD 10-15% below peg in a single trade, but would all abandon Indigo and go to Liqwid if they were charged 10-15% per year?
Liqwids fees to borrow iUSD were so low because there was so much iUSD minted and on the market. It’s not so much anymore since the MCR adjustment to 150% has made it more capital efficient to borrow on Liqwid if people want to short (which they are doing and now the borrow rate currently stands at 15% APR).
Finally, are you aware that development on an interest fee has already been approved by the most recent vote for v2? See 2. Interest Mechanism: A Soft Peg Approach. This is simply my temperature discussion of a specific implementation that I think could work.