Thanks, @MathisGD @allthecolors @WintermuteGovernance and all for your feedback. From the discussion on the community calls, we were under the impression that the community viewed Compound V2 and Compound V3 USDC Comet as having different use cases. In particular, Compound V3 USDC’s primary use case is to be the protocol geared towards borrowing stables. And for Compound V2, the primary use case is not geared towards borrowing stables but rather focuses on other use cases (borrowing volatile assets against volatile assets, shorting assets, etc.).
Under this assumption, increasing USDC RF for Compound V2 would not necessarily “make Compound V2 worse” because the goal of V2 is not for users to borrow stables. E.g., if the goal is for users to borrow stables, then USDC yield for suppliers is very important in order to bootstrap USDC supply. But if the goal is not for users to borrow stables, then the primary use case of USDC on Compound V2 would be using USDC as collateral to short other assets, in which case, the supply yield of USDC is not as important for V2 users. To summarize, increasing the USDC RF for Compound V2 would not make Compound V2 worse but rather align the USDC asset on V2 with its updated primary use case while incentivizing Compound V3 to be the primary protocol where users borrow stablecoins.
Our original proposal included RF changes. If the community is still against increasing RF, we are happy to update the proposal, given that this is primarily a strategic (not risk) related decision. But we hope that this clarifies for the community the tradeoffs.