@IPFred Do you think you can have someone enable github login for the Agoric Discourse forum?
Proposal doesn’t mention that the potential profits and risks of this proposal depend on parameters that Inter Protocol can change at any time.
The stability fee is currently 0.75%, but the Economic Committee can (and should) readjust it in response to evolving market conditions and demand for IST. If the stability fee ever rises to a level where the debt grows faster than the liquidity earns yield, the debt should be wound down by the multisig.
The Economic Committee also has the ability to raise the Liquidation Ratio, so it would help if the proposal included discussion of what each collateral’s LR currently is, the possibility of the LR being changed, and a provision that either commits to not raising the LR for 1 year, or commits to providing substantial advance notice before it does get raised.
Can you explain where you’re getting these numbers from and why anyone would expect them not to change over the next year? (Why the passive voice, ‘is expected’ by who?) Pool 1220 on Osmosis doesn’t show a 10% annual yield, not even after you add on the current extra +5.8% from the artificial OSMO incentives. Pool 1224 earns even less in swap fees. The liquidity in Astroport-Neutron’s USDC.axl - USDT.axl stable pool dried up very recently and doesn’t seem to be earning that kind of yield naturally, it has ASTRO incentives boosting the APR by +22.43% right now.
What would make providing liquidity for a IST/USDC.nbl stableswap more profitable than minting IST and swapping it for bridged sDAI?
It looks like IST isn’t listed as an asset by Astroport on Neutron. (Neither is BLD.) You’d need to submit a pull request adding your tokens to
This proposal should probably be explicit about: a) how many of these DEXes currently list IST, and b) what efforts are being made to add IST to the DEXes that don’t.
That said, is 5 different DEXes essential to the proposal? DEX aggregators should allow selecting the best route regardless of where the liquidity lives, and a previous proposal about liquidity on Osmosis had a lot of discussion that leaned towards favoring a Neutron-based DEX:
Something like this proposal might make sense, but ideally
- it’s mutually beneficial, and shows how it’s more beneficial than alternatives.
- it thoroughly documents all the risks, including risks of liquidation and unprofitability, and includes provisions that mitigate them.
- it requests a specific amount of ATOM in either dollar terms or ATOM terms, not some percentage of whatever the Community Pool holds right now.
- it doesn’t result in owing a debt of more than 20% of the total supply of IST.
- the debt doesn’t exceed 50% of the mint limit for ATOM collateral.
- the debt gets paid down if it ever exceeds those limits (or whatever debt limits get decided on).