Great insights. I think that it is best to use collateral for RWAs on chain that are already supported by the protocol, like the ones you can see on the markets page (Compound Markets). If this is indeed possible, then there is no need for a on-chain governance vote to add a new collateral like the process that is currently going on with stMATIC and MATICX. From the protocol’s perspective, it would not care that the collateral is for an RWA, but simply treat it precisely like any other collateral.
If that is not the case, then there would need to be some analysis of a new RWA ERC-20 being implemented. The protocol needs for it to be sufficiently liquid on the chain so liquidations can be done promptly. Also there needs to be security and economic analysis by community members like OZ and Gauntlet. Yes, there is a cap for number of collaterals allowed but presently we are not close to the cap in any of the v3 deployments.
An Extension for users to interface with the protocol is a great idea. The community is always welcomed and encouraged to create more interfaces for the protocol to ensure that there sufficient is decentralization and redundancy. Would you be the designer and developer of this Extension? I made an Extensions developer guide with resources to get started building one. Happy to help out.