Why not diversifying in cDOT(parallel) and LDOT(Acala) to minimise the risks?
I voted Nay

[@7N3c...TSuK](7N3cNyhFn3sJjwZMUANqReZ8dmBcjMXgtmBpNSxPz79zTSuK-hydradx) imo diversifying into either of those could introduce significant *additional* risks

[@7N3c...TSuK](7N3cNyhFn3sJjwZMUANqReZ8dmBcjMXgtmBpNSxPz79zTSuK-hydradx) The truth is I don't trust either of those two platforms.

If the objective is to minimize the risk, we could do it with a native/direct staking, with that I would agree

while this is simply a step from what is already pre-approved here: [At least 1M DAI equivalent swapped for DOT LSDs (options to be explored) and to be deployed to the Omnipool as LP;](https://hydradx.subsquare.io/democracy/referenda/43)

If while they are in the Omnipool they do not produce any profit that offset the IL(they are receiving staking rewards while they are there)

I would agree to lower the amount a little, although soon with the arrival of stablepools, we can create a dot/Vdot

This proposal, if approved, will:

- Transfer `96,826` DOT from HydraDX Treasury to Bifrost parachain
- Mint equivalent vDOT (currently ~ `81,800` vDOT)
- Transfer vDOT back to HydraDX Treasury
- Deposit `81,500` vDOT into Omnipool

#87·Mint additional vDOT & add to Omnipool