Thanks for the comments @Will. Here is some more colour:
I think this is actually untrue. The only RWAs financed by Maker thus far have come through the Centrifuge platform and to a small extent 6S Capital. They rely on us for our infrastructure (both on and off chain) to tokenize RWA and make them accessible to DeFi. Origination can come from any party and be sent to Centrifuge for a safe and reliable securitization.
The collections process varies from asset to asset. In the rare case a default happens, I would estimate it would take a few months to recover funds. The big positive to what we do is that there are actual assets backing our pools. Even in the event of a default it would very likely be the case that there is a decent recovery rate on the assets, this is much safer than un/under collateralized lending. There is a professional servicer assigned to the SPV (the off-chain structure that houses the collateral) that is tasked with managing a liquidation should it need to occur.
Happy to have this done and collaborate here as things move forward.
Yeah, as I said above, and suggested by @sparkes25, $100M is definitely not the expectation from day 1. I think starting at something smaller is the right move and we can scale over time. I agree with @sparkes25 the FRAX team should have oversight here and can scale the AMO as they see fit.
Also, I think the liquidity profile of Centrifuge and Goldfinch are very similar (we even have a borrower that is live on both platforms). We could specifically design a FRAX vault with short duration assets to start given FRAX maximum liquidity.