The DOLA Fed

Who controls the 'minting' and 'burning' of DOLA?

Each official DOLA lending/borrowing market has a Fed contract set up (see the Smart Contracts page). These contracts have 3 functions for controlling the DOLA supply for its lending pool:
expansion - Mints DOLA into the lending side of the pool (lowers borrow APY %)
contraction – Burns DOLA on the lending side of the pool (increases borrow APY %)
takeProfit – Transfers all profit earned from borrowers to the Inverse Treasury (causes borrow APY % to increase slightly)
These 3 functions can only be called/operated by the account with the ‘Fed Chair’ role. Currently, the ‘Fed Chair’ of all the official DOLA lending pools is the ‘Deployer’ account. If the Inverse DAO decides that the ‘Fed Chair’ is managing DOLA supply inappropriately, the account with the role can be voted in via an on-chain DAO proposal. This setup allows for the supply of DOLA to be managed dynamically and efficiently while maintaining decentralization as the DAO ultimately controls who has the responsibilities of ‘Fed Chair’.

Why doesn't Inverse Finance just 'mint' billions of DOLA?

While technically possible, this would be gross mismanagement of the DOLA supply. The borrow interest rates would become incredibly low, leading to large amounts of borrowing, causing DOLA to flood the market in an unsustainable manner. This would cause the DOLA peg to very quickly fall below $1, making DOLA borrowing very unattractive to new potential users.
Inverse DAO would quickly mobilize to replace a 'Fed Chair' from their position if they mismanaged a pool by taking actions, such as minting a substantial amount of DOLA. The new ‘Fed Chair’ candidate would then be able to reverse the previous ‘Fed Chair’ actions.
A great way to keep track of all the ‘expansions’ and ‘contractions’ of DOLA supply is via the ‘Feds Historical Data’ tab on the Transparency page.