optima Upon conversing and reflecting with intelligent people, I have modified my opinion:
I do think C3 can benefit from evaluating, at a protocol level, where to allocate rewards between: 1) liquidity, 2) single-asset staking, & 3) bridging - and could dictate a stance that:
Liquidity > single-assets > bridging;
the reality is this is the designed and intended application of the protocol, and obtaining consensus to a fundamental change is unlikely.
Internally, this conversation has sparked the KlimaDAO policy team to begin considering our free-market options of locking and voting our C3 to weigh in on the gauge decision.
In my opinion, the macro conditions generally, and bridging situation specifically, are the single biggest factors dictating the fate of C3 in the short, mid, and long term.
Tokens will continue to be accumulated by free market participants and fought over in a one-gauge, PVP arena. Market participants will want to assume the least risk, while the protocol will benefit from them assuming more - this does not need to necessarily be harmful long-term, although in the short-term there will likely be a large portion of C3 tokens flowing to risk-off activities that do not optimize for protocol health.