I was having a conversation with some friends/co-workers about insurance in crypto and one of the things that we discussed was the first time an exploit occurs that is covered by Unslashed and the impact it may have on the project.
My general thought was that it would be good long term for Unslashed to have an official claim and pay out on it, as it would provide credibility to the platform and show the need/benefit of insurance. I also think that in the short-term it may be seen as unattractive and even have some capital providers leave based on the recency bias of high perceived risk.
The behavior of capital suppliers may also depend on how impacted their position was. For example, I think each policy in the Spartan bucket has a maximum of 5% exposure per policy. I wanted to do a little more digging on this-
One somewhat similar example I looked into was the first few successful claims that Nexus Mutual paid out and the impact that it had on capital suppliers and token price. So far there have been 3 major claims events and 2 payouts (members of the mutual decide if a claim is valid and should be paid.) These seem to lower the price of NXM in the short term as ETH is taken form the capital buckets to pay for the claims, but in the long run, they have not greatly impacted the overall price.
I was curious if others had opinions or ideas about this? Is there anything we could/should be thinking about? Are there any actionable things we could do to mitigate negative short term impact?
One thought was to strategically allocate USF that could be used to offset the loss of the first (or first few) exploits for capital providers in a good faith gesture so they are not as impacted. You could argue that is part of the risk of being a capital provider so I can see both pros/cons to that action, but wanted to see if others had thought about it at all and if there was interest in discussion.