I've floated this idea many times in the last few weeks in other threads.
The For and Against, stipend people has been arguing if stipen should be cut or not for months now.
The people who want is gone are concern the in balance and lack of demand related response to the money supply the stipend creates. (Net increase of money supply far exceed demand.)
They want money supply to be responsive to demand.
On the flip side, other people want to be able to rely on the consistence stipend payment. (Like bonds or annuality that pays every week) And they did pay for it. They want continual weekly stipend that they paid for.
This is where LL need to step up, be a responsible regulator/ government. Buy $L from LindeX to pay for the stipend they need to pay out first, before printing additional $L.
LL would essentially need to place a buy order at a target value (325 for example) on LindeX. $L bought in this manner would be used to pay stipend. In the case when there is not enough, LL would than print more $L to make up the difference.
The reverse can also be true. LL should set a low target that indicate an excess demand in $L (maybe 300). In this case, LL would not be able to buy any $L from LindeX and must print 100% of the Stipends. In additional they may consider printing additional $L and place a sell order of limited size at 300 to make sure the $L doesn't get too hot and restrict transaction in SL.
It is actaully quite possilbe that LL is going to do this, and the continuing weakening of $L is just the normal adjustment. On many accounts, $L is over valued, (the USD$72 annual plan = 361L / $1) I think the current value of 325 / 1 is much more realistic than the 250 / 1 LL original target rate.
Yes, this will add cost to LL. However if the whole "platform" is for real and not just propaganda, LL need to step up work towards providing a stable economical platform instead of the current ponzi plan model.