How much control should the UMA governance have over new Collateral types

The’res been some chat in Dicord around collateral types and the checks and balances needed to maintain the security of the protocol while also allowing as open use as possible.

(Link to start of of discussion below for anyone just catching up)

Lets carry the conversation on here.

A background summary of the issue…

There were concerns about the volitility and liquidity of the “bridged” RenDoge, and that it could be difficult to mint if you needed to liquidate, however there was a suggestion that as RenDoge is a 1:1 wrapper, then it was the (high) liquidity of the underlying asset (ie Doge) that should be considered rather than the Ren wrapped version, as you can convert Doge to RenDoge on demand through the Ren bridge.