DFIP-2206-G: Allow liquidity mining tokens as collateral #160
Comments
uzyn
changed the title
|
defi-cli signmessage 8VqHKJmGVPxDj2gZyD4cMnE5AvjrKPBgT6 "DFIP-2206-G-NO" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8WhLwsQGJa5umXBipD2hap7pnFAm4aLq3r "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8U71AKaWBsR3oxo1EF4ngDxCxsX6qhoTK5 "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8TqT5duF7oHniSdSH8Rh6Xz25r4GDLGzRU "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8QAHBHkLD96Qa846VnLeyXuykN1317fxti "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
defi-cli signmessage "8UsgQBnNpjvjGoearXfXaVX6MNRxfdLGuK" "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8dmUcdG9RcDr5HQ6g5qShq7HzFrCJtAwVU "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
signmessage 8P24qRzccs9FJXkqrrzPZGa2aNXxqBkrmb "DFIP-2206-G-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8dK9kXfVP5e7CNiY7g6o1z7Vaq4esFPiQi "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8TjJgV4jg55g9nWfJhmhriMerxsY7AAHrY "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
signmessage 8RNwLywUm8BHY1RqjdaZ9SaaurTLWFSJbx "cfp-2206-G-yes" |
|
signmessage 8REfG2L75fS3nCBaUwKbEbMAvxVxuxj3Bi "cfp-2206-G-yes" |
|
signmessage 8RNwLywUm8BHY1RqjdaZ9SaaurTLWFSJbx "dfip-2206-G-yes" |
|
signmessage 8REfG2L75fS3nCBaUwKbEbMAvxVxuxj3Bi "dfip-2206-G-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8X92s4hh1dPjW7cZDRjZrKoLG8h7VeKNsA "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
think this is not good to do. you could actually get another dUSD LM pair with your current LM Pairs. |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8YoNtr6DVry5L68TLDgGHV6mVkzRUB18AB "dfip-2206-g-no" |
And with the huge amount of interest you would pay to the chain you would help to reduce the unbacked dDUS by a lot. so everyone would profit from your work and your bot. Check DFIP-2206-E: Dynamic interest rates on DUSD loans for the interest you would pay. Right now you would have quite a big loss, but the whole community and Defichain would win. So yes, would be great if you would do it. |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8JdbYYdXc4VaTmihQndAbutHURWU1MLDat "dfip-2206g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8KZ41xJbsDJEeumtRYQZWBU7uiz67KRkak "dfip-2206-g-neutral" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8P22EWKPCn6PWHaJTUMhLnL2xxwRwxoXMS "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8FAnZomHrhsfEegfsaZE8mKxFgncZCjvPW "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
defi-cli signmessage 8daGYPTDTzMRtUx61uWRjg7p9GECMjuip8 "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
defi-cli signmessage 8QCBuwyuQFTMPxgZAaK6kQaVnnpye5nc4C "dfip-2206-g-no" defi-cli signmessage 8UToj6ZjpiTL3E5GJQG2c4pWRyp3tTzBxy "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8bAFs5b14B6A2iddURMUnUyLffeTBNzf3P "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
$defi-cli signmessage 8Jyov8rftj4tJZ8Pfb8UWVpGcENvc54Bbv "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
signmessage 8cS4WTshRjjhKJ5fizs7tNmK49yRufM5Vt dfip-2206-g-no |
|
signmessage 8VKs5jqADhwRTHVXsf8hhMmJm5r8FpWF7h "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
You can already use DUSD as collateral. This DFIP does not and cannot change anything on this matter. |
|
defi-cli signmessage 8dJLcKddBnwXzzXBLeZLYqzHehfeB8UWa2 "DFIP-2206-G-no" defi-cli signmessage 8JgPSdyFpLTG1wAnxFHpuHjEoSmPBhHccg "DFIP-2206-G-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8N9itGuACQCojgt3mCPtLqGpsrtgXpn4Yz "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
defi-cli signmessage 8LvY9Py5pp8eqQ6tPaLxwH64osfdNppfXu "dfip-2206-g-neutral" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8UcLHts8dkbWdZ3FkebVCEQ4D5vTmFPXTj "dfip-2206-g-neutral" |
|
signmessage 8KQepBiuDrQi3JFqxkz1agdJSpp8PmRv43 "DFIP-2206-G-no" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8L7grcnPHkS4Yahu5i1gBPGRvFCQFRDc9N "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
Hey Wolfgang, |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8P4CGnPt7r2nkxgY467rASz2f666xPK9ge "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8GqTAKgU8MQLjAZCuyGUY52hPpvgeEFpoj "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
defi-cli signmessage 8Wk9Yfeyd7C4Nh6FTs6tmGobhBmPzmhmFM "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8FMproxkvrSheWifx1mpeCNvamLN9dPGeF "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
I am voting NO as I think this wold only introduce levarage into the system, which has kaputted so mani projects already. $ defi-cli signmessage 8Vm9Xt1pB7vzkJdCaJihT4rKKMjmLkdUDC "dfip-2206-g-no" |
|
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8Ge2A1iK6ZBJYC6phUw92pvTyJYoXJLgw2 "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
|
signmessage 8X9mSBVoeFfsk7XyAJmYCGu4SgrQzMj7Ud “drip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8K5EUbUbdpRWH1Tx1tTSpJgXs1x8Bck5vN “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8SQaHvzkrHik3o9vwF1MdKf2LkdgcicNTD “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8cfqCfRmN697jMavNmgbJH61tRXNhBXCiM “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8c3Rdmz1hCSvvSRittYUYQtQQLurX8dzzQ “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8F8fVhgSHs71NUFvEmhVeYatzayo6YQ1Zw “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8WnUuKZ7U55HNxmnwZMwzJHggRSy1ZKUKs “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8XFTnhwwbyM3MA7jLosmiupJfzKvuC8XM8 “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8LiEQLQCLkv2eTcQ5vmMWszMCXEYBk9GK3 “dfip-2206-g-no“ signmessage 8YfZo7Qow2G6aZFWAzEoWAvxufA7AyYb4i “dfip-2206-g-no“ |
|
Votes of the DFX Community Votes: signmessage 8KirKNGVgrsQsmWuy1Ee4ZmsnXVVkAEzh2 dfip-2206-g-no |
|
$ defi-cli signmessage 8a2WqsaCWwTe6XDBZrm3G1BXMaHfi5Dxs9 "dfip-2206-g-yes" |
mnstate_validate.log |
and others
DFIP Overview
Requester(s): Wolfgang Stindl
Reddit discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/defiblockchain/comments/vdjc7z/dfip_allow_liquidity_mining_tokens_as_collateral/
Proposal fee (50 DFI) txid: 01b72628d14c3e378d08e5d677960983b68dbaf90347b4d6385253b726fbfa7d
Proposal:
In order to increase the effectiveness of the measures presented by Kügi and to increase trust in the dToken system, I therefore propose that the corresponding liquidity mining tokens (LM tokens) also be allowed as collateral.
This is an additional DFIP to the dUSD Proposals from the Twitter Talk. Since it goes hand in hand with the dUSD proposals, it should be coordinated and implemented together and not waited till the official voting round.
Currently, the following tokens are allowed:
accordingly, the following LM tokens should also be admitted as collateral:
How does this DFIP benefit the DeFiChain community?
Currently, a large part of the dUSD and dToken is not covered by a loan but by burnt DFI(more or less uncovered). This is one of the reasons why we are currently seeing the dUSD discount, as these excess dUSD cannot be easily removed from the system.
However, in order to be able to pull excess dUSD out of the system and build trust in the system, we need a high proportion of dUSD/dTokens backed by vaults/loans.
Currently, it is not very lucrative to put capital into a vault and mine dTokens due to the high opportunity costs. As the capital in the vault is exposed to inflation but cannot work itself. Therefore, most of the capital is in liquidity mining and not in the Vaults. Therefore the TVL in the Vaults has decreased massively.
However, the vaults in connection with the minted tokens fulfil a necessary and very important task in the defichain. They increase the stability of the dToken system and are necessary to establish trust. Furthermore, the vault/loan creators pay up to 5% interest per year, which, in conjunction with the measures presented by Kügi, stabilise the dUSD system and reduce a surplus of dUSD/dTokens.
Therefore, I think it is inevitable to reduce the opportunity cost of creating a vault. The simplest and strait forward solution is to allow LM tokens as collateral. This way you have working capital in the vault and the opportunity cost is significantly reduced. This leads to a strong incentive for the community to mine dTokens backed by loans.
LM tokens can be handled, moved and shared in exactly the same way as normal tokens and therefore fit 1:1 into the current system. Auctions are also still possible on a 1:1 basis.
With this measure, the volume of minted dUSD/dTokens could be increased by 387% in one fell swoop and the ratio of uncovered dTokens to dTokens covered by loans would be back in the acceptable range.
Since LM tokens always consist of 50% DFI, it should also be possible to use them directly as collateral without additional DFI. If this would represent too high a technical effort, it could also be realised in 2 steps.
Step 1: LM token only together with 50% DFI/dUSD (So just like a dBTC token)
Step 2: Implementation according to the real DFI/dUSD distribution.
This should be decided by the technical committee as the fastest and safest way to implement it.
FAQ:
Would "those" who do it then get double the return?
No, they wouldn't, because if everyone does it, the APR is reduced and the additional return is not too high. In return, however, "they" also have to return 5% interest on the loans to the chain, thus stabilising the chain and assuming the risk of being liquidated.
There was already a proposal like this that was rejected.
No, the last proposal in a similar direction was about allowing masternodes as #collateral. I had also rejected this, because masternodes cannot simply be shared or moved. This would have turned the entire existing mechanisms upside down. LM tokens in return can be treated 1:1 in the same way as other tokens dBTC for example.
Will I then still get rewards on the LM tokens?
Of course, that is the background behind the proposal.
Do the APRs on the dTokens then go down sharply?
In the first step, APR will go down as more capital will flow into the shares. But the returning confidence will most likely lead to an increase in the price of the DFI. Which will cause the APR on the shares to rise again. So it's a WIN-WIN.
The advantages in summary:
- Confidence and trust will be restored and increased
In my opinion, this is a clear WIN-WIN-WIN situation and a no-brainer. This DFIP should be voted on and implemented together with the dUSD proposals, so I am putting it forward now rather than in the next round.
Non-obligation
I understand that vote of confidence for DFIP carries no obligations by any developers to implement the proposals. DeFiChain is a community projects. Pull requests can be submitted by community and reserved to be evaluated for safety and general community acceptance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: