I agree with this restriction - will limit initial supply but it's in the long term interest of the protocol. Especially, considering that reaching 140 iBTC should be doable soon.

I agree completely. This offer will limit the entry of a large amount of INTR liquidity into the market and support the price slightly. It will also make the distribution of iBTC rewards more fair/even. Need to quickly launch the bridge and integration with Acala and other DeFi. // Я согласен полностью. Это предложение ограничит выход большого кол-ва ликвидности INTR на рынок и поддержит немного цену. А так же сделает распределение наград за iBTC более справедливым\равномерным. Необходимо быстрeе запускать мост и интеграцию с Acala и другими DeFi. //

I think it is not necessary to add new distribution rule regarding Kintsugi. It works fine with kintsugi, no need to change that. See discussions.

I support setting an initial cap, but I think it should be higher, more like 0.43 INTR/BTC. Our Kintsugi vaults have stabilized at holding 24.6 BTC after 3-4 months of operation, so 0.43 INTR/BTC matches that point on the yellow INTR/iBTC per block curve.

I support this proposal, it's getting better and better

Very supportive!

500

I tend to agree that the initial cap per BTC should be a bit higher. Seems here that based on current prices APY will be significantly lower than on Kintsugi which personally will make me think twice of increasing my kintsugi vault rather than lauching or increasing my interlay vault, which is the opposite of the intent of this proposal. Around 0.43 as proposed below would indeed seem to be more adapted: still prevents over-rewarding, but keeps the initial APY sufficiently appealing