0x387a161c…fffdsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,299,652·view on Etherscan
@0x2117...E42a
Thanks for the questions. Here’s a quick clarification for others reading:
1. There’s no impermanent loss here. Morpho Blue is not an LP or AMM. USDS is lent into a single-sided, over-collateralised, isolated market.
2. The 2% stake in IMF is not based on MOG. It’s equity in the IMF protocol itself. The $IMF token owns the protocol. Whoever holds 51% controls it. No governance, no emissions, no multisigs.
3. We selected MOG because the market is live, active, and culturally aligned with Nouns. It already has real borrow demand. After the May 6 hard launch, we will be open to ANY token, with onboarding via the Pool mechanism.
4. Union is exploring under-collateralised credit. It’s promising, but this proposal uses fully deployed, immutable infrastructure with over $4B in deposits and 25+ audits behind it via Morpho.
5. A “flagship” USDC vault would be fine, but it doesn’t create protocol exposure or cultural alignment. This one does.
This proposal is about creating mutual benefit. Nouns earns yield and gains protocol equity, while IMF gets to prove a new model. It paves the way for future experiments where funding goes both directions.
>
>
> Why not just a flagship morpho usdc vault? Seems simpler and less risky. Why not Union protocol? They’ve been around longer and have more features? The 2% stake is based on a meme token so this is the equivalent of getting stock at a startup only worth anything if it actually hits critical mass/goes public. Why not do lending with a more stable pair? Why not another pair, why this one? Didn’t read anything about impermanent loss here are we somehow immune for all that, how?
>