Thank you for the clear notice, and for committing to leave a documented, stakeholder-reviewed resolution path rather than simply closing the door. That commitment is the right call — and it’s exactly what this question is about.
For the impaired markets in workstream #2 that won’t be fully resolved by June 30, the single most useful thing the handoff can do is be explicit about one distinction: which markets are being handed over with a funding-and-liquidity path, and which are being handed over with a monitoring framework only. Those are very different things to inherit, and a successor needs to know which is which on day one.
CRV-long is the clearest example of why it matters. After about a month with a live gauge, the crvUSD side of the recovery pool still sits around 211,600 crvUSD against a cvcrvUSD side in the hundreds of millions, and the pool quotes the claim near 0.00081. The mechanism is sound, but it never reached the depth where holders can actually exit — so as of today this is a market with a recovery design but no working exit.
Two ways to close that gap are already on the forum record, and neither asks LlamaRisk to author anything new before leaving:
- the DAO providing liquidity to the pool as an LP, not a grant — CRV-long recovery thread, post 18;
- a standing rule routing a capped share of already-collected admin/L2 fees into recovery pools across the cohort — LlamaLend v1 deprecation-plan thread, standing-framework post.
The ask is small: name these as open items in the handoff — even a single line flagging that the depth gap is unfinished and pointing the successor at the two candidates. If the intended handoff for this market really is monitoring-only, that’s an understandable scope call given the timeline; it simply helps everyone to have it stated plainly, so the gap is owned rather than left implicit.
Either way — thank you for the four years.