If you have 2x collateral, it protects you against an 50% black swan. Cost 100% Gain 100% Ratio 1
If you have 3x collateral, it protects you against an 66% black swan. Cost +50% Gain +32% Ratio .64
If you have 4x collateral, it protects you against an 75% black swan. Cost +33% Gain +13% Ratio .39
If you have 5x collateral, it protects you against an 80% black swan. Cost +25% Gain +6% Ratio .24
If you have 6x collateral, it protects you against an 83% black swan. ...
If you have 7x collateral, it protects you against an 86% black swan.
If you have 8x collateral, it protects you against an 87.5% black swan.
If you have 9x collateral, it protects you against an 88.9% black swan.
If you have 10x collateral, it protects you against an 90% black swan
You decided for 3x collateral that means protection against a 66% black swan...
Is the remaining 34% not a serious possibility/threat? (is it not because it's only theoretical?)
Would we be not more comfortable with a 5x collateral and a 80% "protection"?
And maybe we could even "promote" somehow the 5x collateral with the help of our
meme
and maybe even with a 5% default yearly interest rate that increase depended on the willingness of the shorters(?)....
imagine the number 5 rules (from a marketing view of point) 5x collateral, 5% interest ,
our meme....
Maybe I am totally wrong with my thoughts, I suck on economics after all....
BUT I suggest you before implementing the 3x collateral to make a simple typical poll thread where you ask the community what they want....
for example:
How much collateral do you thing is needed to implement on the exchange market?
1. 2x
2. 3x
3. 4x
4. 5x
5. 6x
6. 7x
7. Let the shorter choose the collateral ratio
8. I don't know
9. Iet the dev's decide, I trust them.
I thing even the competitors will not blame you in future for that decision when it was taken by community consensus...
We could use it as marketing wapon, that the community makes many critical decisions together etc....
PS after all I really believe we will have the same result or at least very close to your initial proposal.... or a better one (?) (from agent86 maybe?)