Quasar doesn’t live up to its promises and is doing a bizarre eth reissuance.
Discuss here:
YES: terminate all usage of quasar for pol
3 Likes
3rd proposal, I will make it into a post tomorrow. The forum only allows two per day.
Long term stakers are fleeing.
Yes: bring inflation on the hub back to its default settings and request that atonement be put on hold
(I will post the settings, but need to dig them up)
1 Like
DEMAND THE UNCENSORING OF THIS FORUM AND ASSERT ITS VALUE
This forum has brat value to the community for years, and contains conversations which should rightfully last for years because the Hub needs to last for decades.
YES: DEMAND THAT THE COSMOS HUB FORUM NO LONGER BE CENSORED
1 Like
The token re-issuance is bizarre indeed, but is there any impact on the actual vault management?
I can’t see any on their drafted proposal.
Are you trying to say that their vault management is of acceptable quality?
Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
I’m trying to say that their token reissuance is ridiculous and that their vault management is of unacceptable quality.
twin osmosis proposal
data gathered by rarma
1 Like
It doesn’t perform as well as it could.
It performs acceptably better than a static position for the purpose of backing liquid staked atom.
It performs terribly if this position is meant to generate yield for Cosmos Hub.
But my point is that this token reissuance has seeming no impact on the performance of these vaults and this should not be part of any decision to withdraw this liqudity.
Choosing to withdraw based on performance alone is a conversation to have, but an alternative that outperforms Quasar should be suggested.
1 Like
The fact is that manual usage performs better because the fees on quasar are really high and the performance is quite poor.
Margined outperforms quasar, too.
About the token reissuance: it doesn’t have to do with the vault functions sure but at the same time it comes out of nowhere.
The fact that it returned the same fees as 10x the liquidity in the static position over time indicates that it is isn’t underperforming compared to the static position by that much - the liquidity is getting used just as much. I believe that a narrow single sided position that kicks in at a 0.1% depeg or similar is better for backing purposes than a static position spread over several percentage above and below.
I’ll readily agree that the position shouldn’t ever reach that point if managed efficiently. Vaults should automatically follow the market upwards to redemption rate.
Margined is likely a better vault for LSTs by design, but the performance is hard to compare. Margined also had some performance issues for the last month when it went to a single position the automatically rebalancing got stuck. It’s back up and running now and I’m hoping to propose expanding the Osmosis LST backing liquidity to it in the next week.
I imagine the Margined team would be happy to take on the role of providing backing liquidity and spin up an atom LST vault.
Their general purpose LST arb vault also went live the other day.
2 Likes
We’re definitely aligned with that statement as well. Fortunately, Hydro is set to address this by offering more efficient and community-driven solutions to better allocate protocol-owned liquidity. In this model, every LST pair will essentially vie for better risk-reward outcomes, encouraging smarter allocation decisions over time. The example of underperformance you mentioned is one of the key drivers behind the creation of the Hydro protocol—aiming to harness market dynamics while ensuring that a capable committee, equipped with the necessary expertise, can effectively manage the associated risks of liquidity allocations.
its not returning anything to holders. you are creating a mechanism to remove liquidity by grant farming the CP and awarding it back to yourselves through governance proposals that you also control…on top of what validators are overpaid to provide “security”
1 Like
I agree with you entirely.
1 Like