Consolidating recent proposals by @alphavalion

Community Chatroom (DISCUSSION)
15

Hey Everyone,

So I’m been doing some research here to further understand what the options are.

In my eyes, we have three main approaches that fit the decentralized requirement (public functions anyone can call).

Option 1: The Stable to Stable Strategy outlined by @mbr

Description: Scroll up for main proposal

Pros:

  • Stable to stable typically generates among the highest volumes in the ecosystem
  • This can really bring some eyes, attention and integrations to the protocol. 1 BP stable trades with very low gas are appealing to arbs, protocols, traders, aggregators etc.

Cons:

  • I have no idea if the market will go up or down from here - but if it goes up, it might not have been a great time to buy stables.
  • We are exposed to the token in the pair. - a hack/bug/malfunction could make the strategy worthless.

Option 2: ETH/LSD, LSD/LSD, or similar protocol owned strategy mentioned by @alphavalion , @AnimaDunk , @PaperStreetCapital and @0xkeyrock.eth

Description: Very similar to main proposed but with ETH/LSDs and different ranges (yet to be determined what the precise ranges would be)

Pros:

  • ETH/LSD or LSD/LSD as opposed to stables means we will not lose value in a bull market

Cons:

  • We are exposed to the token in the pair, and these are newer than stables - a hack/bug/malfunction could make the strategy worthless.
  • LSD volumes onchain are VERY low compared to stables which means likely far less fees gnereated and volume from these pairs.
  • If prices go out of range, there is no existing decentralized method to change the strategy parameters and one would need to be developed as a public function - but this will take time and comes with opportunity cost and caller incentive costs.

Option 3: Disposable maker orders of TKN on Carbon - closest to @alphavalion’s original idea

Description: Take the POL in its TKN form, and using an oracle (with some safeguard in place) create a disposable limit order on Carbon selling it for BNT. In a future proposal, we can create a function to take these BNT acquired and destroy them.

Pros:

  • Brings a variety of TKN to Carbon and pairs them with BNT (only the TKN side is funded with the POL).
  • Of these options, most likely to reduce the deficits in the near term (in my personal opinion - not something that can be proven).

Cons:

  • Less likely to create a long term protocol owned strategy that is active for long periods of time.
  • If prices go out of range, there is no existing decentralized method to change the strategy parameters and one would need to be developed as a public function - but this will take time and comes with opportunity cost and caller incentive costs.
3 Likes