I’m starting to think that might be a bit more tricky for governance token. To the point that we might be possibly interested in having 2 different markets for COMP tokens. In some way it applies to other governance tokens too, but since COMP is native governance token of Compound that should be our primary concern. My primary focus on having COMP market isn’t really about providing borrow opportunity, but more of:
- Enabling COMP holders to use their tokens as collateral
- Preserving ability to vote, by keeping voting power from that tokens during supply
- Potentially providing reward initiatives by locking COMP tokens for different time-frames.
And here we come to a problem if we are having a borrow side of COMP pool. We can’t preserve voting power for original owner, because the very same tokens could be borrowed from pool and borrower would expect voting power to come with them.
That could be addressed if we not allow cTokens from that pool to be borrowed. So basically they would be able to serve as collateral AND preserve voting power to original Supplier, as well as be timelocked in that pool, but by doing so we lose abililty for them to be borrowed.
Or we could allow them to be borrowed like traditional markets, but then supplier have to forfeit their voting rights for the duration of his supply.
Or maybe there could be 2 types of cComp, one with preservation of voting power and another with not. What is more important for future of protocol, preserving voting power for suppliers, or ability to borrow COMP as i don’t think we could have both in one cToken. Or am i missing something here?