Thread by @GoolagCrypto

There's been some great discussion going on in the @templedao discord regarding the unstake queue and whether it's really an appropriate mechanism for controlling liqudity

Just wanted to give my 2 cents on it

I can see why forcefully having shallow liquidity on markets and an unstake queue to prevent capital flight is shady

I think a lot of crypto-natives from 2008 till now have experienced rug pulls and the crushing feeling of getting dumped on by a protocol

However, I think it's different in the case for Temple and here's why

Temple has given a promise of a safe-haven from the volatility of crypto. Volatility doesn't just mean stopping the price from going up, but also down

If the DAO wants to control that what can they do?

Some people argue that we only need to have Temple defend, where the DAO buys up Temple at IV to have a form of stability

I think instead that if we only have the Defend mechanism we won't be able to keep price from going down for too long. We'll run out of reserves quickly

If we combine the unstake queue with the Defend contract we have a much more manageable means of preventing price from being below IV for too long

By only letting 3% of TVL unstake per day we can last longer with reserves than if 50% of TVL decided to exit

Furthermore the unstake queue acts as a funnel for long-term investors into @templedao. Only the commited and people with a long-term thesis should be entering the protocol and staking, which means we'll be attracting high-quality members

I'd rather scare off the ST flippers

In summary, we can't both have exit liquidity and manage volatility on AMMs

Shallow liquidity and an unstake queue allows for the DAO to manage reserves, maintain IV, and attract only the highest quality holders of $Temple