This proposal recommends offboarding the following assets from Unichain, Base, Arbitrum, and Linea across Euler due to low demand i.e. less than 100K in supply volume.
Offboarding some of these token will hurt the protocol, in my opinion.
Once the offboarding starts, funds may still be present at the end of the ramping (lend & borrow)
How will borrowers may still able to reimburse funds if it disappears from market? How will lenders be able to withdraw funds if they cannot know the liquidity available for withdrawal?
If certain funds are to be off-boarded, all outstanding debt positions shall be closed. Otherwise borrower will never have the incentive to repay their position if they have enough funds.
Personally, I’m referring to EURC, but no user shall be hurt by such incidents. Not saying protocol shall bail-out users, but that open debt positions must be closed. If those vaults disappear from the UI, how should not tech-savvy users ever get their funds back
For a proposal like this, I think it would be good to at least provide some reasoning why this would be good for the protocol. Ideally, a list of pros and cons.
To clarify how the offboarding process works: borrowers can still repay and lenders can still withdraw throughout the wind-down. The parameter changes (LTV ramping to 0, reduced caps) prevent new borrowing while existing positions unwind naturally. Vaults remain functional in the UI during the offboarding process. The gradual LTV reduction creates an incentive for borrowers to close positions over time.
These markets have minimal utilization but still require monitoring and carry tail risk. Offboarding the proposed assets improves capital efficiency and reduces the protocol’s risk surface.