Sorry for the slightly delayed response, but this being a somewhat comprehensively controversial topic, it’s not easy to put into words right away.
Overall, I must concur with @ScarceJim on most points, and I’d echo them in form and purpose.
What I would like to add is perhaps a similar move of simply removing the heaviness USDT exerts on the protocol overall would make me rest more easily in bed each night.
We all have a love/hate relationship with Tether, inclining that it comes down to our risk assessment if we tend to one side or the other more, but overall I feel for protocol safety, and for majority of users that simply with confidence wish to use our protocol to put their savings into fiat backed stable dollar denominated assets, I think that taking a comprehensively conservative approach seems best for the vast majority.
I’d therefore propose to reduce the total basket weight of USDT to be more in line with the risk it carries, similar to how we reduced the sUSD basket weight. Putting USDT entirely into a feeder basket might become a necessity, but I’d again be conservative here in risk vs reward and see how the majority of MTA stakeholders feel in relation to having USDT directly represented in the basket or not.
I caution this because I remember putting too many questions into one vote can be extremely detrimental for the movements of the protocol, so I want to absolutely make sure everyone understands all implications of the slightest change in core protocol structure.
Actually, I’d ponder to start discussion on ranking our underlying basket assets in different groups and give them weights and proportions as a result of this ranking.
Initially, we could have 4 or 5 different risk groups, similar to risk tranches seen in BarnBridge or traditional financial systems. Higher risk assets get put into a more risky branch, therefore only allowing a lower overall percentage to occupy the mStable basket, or only appear in feeder baskets initially.
Based on positive track record, sentiment, and other factors, they could work towards reaching a lower risk tranche, and therefore allowing for more risk to be allocated towards MTA holders, as they are the ones that carry the most risk at all times, and should be the ones to get first say in who is allowed to appear higher up in the ladder, as more trust is put into these protocols.
Just a few thoughts around this, and hope it helps doing it’s part in figuring this tricky terrain out a bit better 
Let’s never forget we are still pioneers in the space, and mistakes will be part of the price to pay in making the overall protocol and DAOs more secure against manipulation and unforeseen events.
