Exchange section

[BennyOptions]

Seems that when you set the date to a time prior to any POL for that asset, it returns something a bit weird. It should be 0/0 I would think. Talking about the column furtherest to the right.

Also, while I'm here, @parrot9design I'd say that there could be a better descriptor than "EXCHANGE", though I understand where you're coming from. I'd recommend Protocol Owned Liquidity, as anybody across the industry from any ecosystem will recognize this. Hoping new users/potential investors immediately understand what this is w/o any friction/confusion. I don't necessarily love every new piece of lingo that comes out of the industry, but I think there are tangible benefits to making this a recognizable term for the balanced target market.

[BennyOptions]

UPDATE: This is only a design issue. The issue mentioned above regarding amount of POL was not an issue. It was a small test amount prior to making the large deposit.

[parrot9design]

We started out with Protocol-owned liquidity, but the length was an issue as it overcomplicated the section and is difficult to read in all-caps, so we decided it would better to use a shorter alternative (the fact that it’s jargon was a tertiary issue).

Protocol-owned is actually redundant to specify in a Holdings section, as all the assets listed are protocol-owned. Liquidity doesn’t work well on its own, so Exchange was the only heading that made sense. It's a noun, for starters (which keeps it consistent with DAO Fund), and is consistent with the main Stats page. I was also considering its use in a sentence "How much value does the Balanced DAO hold?" "It holds $x in the DAO Fund and $x on the exchange..."

If you have any other suggestions I’m happy to consider them, but neither Protocol-owned liquidity nor Liquidity seemed like the right choice here.

[parrot9design]

I stand by my previous comment. Nothing to fix here.