This is an example of why it’s generally a bit harder to work with your products and assess risks. The strategy looks complicated and seems to be controlled by Tetu in the sense that we cannot guarantee that you suddenly decide to change parameters (lack of docs doesn’t help).
Also in regards to the „emotional“ responses from Tritium: he has pointed out very valid concerns that resonates with me as well. I remember that when we suggested the A factor change for the tetu gauge you guys didn’t seem to care. Full discussions can be reviewed here: [RFC]: Mitigation of potential risks associated with TetuBAL Stable Pool settings
Only a power play by humpy made you switch strategies AFAIK. So it’s not like you tried to work with us in the past unfortunately.
I honor that you want to build cool products on top of Balancer but as it stands another risky pool with no clear guard rails is not something I can vote for.
I hope we can find a solution. Currently, the only proper way for a gauge in my opinion is a rate provider implementation like for most LST pools.