Add the MORPHO token as an asset to the USD3 Asset Registry.
Abstract
ERC-20 assets that need to be used as part of an RToken system (either as collateral or as revenue assets) need to be registered in the Asset Registry contract for USD3.
Currently the asset registry does not contain the MORPHO asset. If enacted, this proposal would add the MORPHO token to the USD3 Asset Registry.
There is a collateral basket change proposal for USD3 onchain. This proposal has proposed adding the Morpho Steakhouse USDC vault into the collateral basket. This vault has two revenue sources:
If the collateral basket change proposal passes and Morpho Steakhouse USDC becomes a part of the USD3 collateral basket, there is no way to realize the additional MORPHO rewards.
Rationale
By registering the MORPHO token to the USD3 Asset Registry RSR stakers and USD3 holders will benefit from the entire yield profile that this asset offers.
Risks
The Risk is in not registering the MORPHO token. By not registering the token, RSR stakers and USD3 holders would forgo the additional MORPHO rewards.
I see no downside to this proposal, and would happily vote for it on-chain so RSR stakers and USD3 holders can fully realise the yield from the RToken.
It’s a shame that a proposal like this has to go through governance though, I wonder if there is a ‘small’ change to the protocol we could make in the future which will automatically green-light any ERC-20 asset that will be used when we bring a yield strategy into a RToken basket.
Alternatively, could this have been bundled into the collateral basket change proposal for the Morpho Steakhouse USDC vault. Keen to hear your thoughts @0xTomSawyer
Taking the other side here: As a token holder I would find it very calming to know this is happening and that it get’s approved. Complexity in proposals makes oversight harder and increases the attack surface.
Not everyone is as aligned as @0xTomSawyer. It can be a dark forest out there.
Thanks for this Raph, I think it’s a fine balance between our points of view here.
I agree with your position up to a point but there must be a point where it becomes superfluous to security. I’d be interested to know how much of an attack vector it would be if all ERC-20 tokens were green-light as opposed to how we do it one by one. I imagine a malicious collateral asset is a more likely attack vector than a malicious revenue asset but adding an asset to the registry doesn’t discriminate between the two, which would be concerning if we just opened the gates to all ERC-20s.
There is definitely some middle ground here though, adding MORPHO to the registry could have been baked into the collateral basket change RFC and halved the workload for governors. Although we’d still need proposals like this in the future if the tokens used to incentivise yield strategies change after it has been added to the collateral basket.
