I’m not aiming to win any argument so I could care less if I ‘lose’. I just see two perspectives. One is a founder who deeply cares about Tezos and is attempting to solve some real problems with incredible tech that actually has safeguards in place.
Then another perspective that seems to be on a witch hunt for tzBTC, both have a stake in kUSD, and have turned this debate into irrational arguments. You and Keefer are so positioned into your arguments that you are unwilling to even be open to try it for 6 months. It’s just extremely odd to be so stubborn.
Who do you think cares more about the longevity of Tezos? I know for a fact you don’t have a vested interest for it to succeed as much as the founder would.
The problem I see with wUSDC is then you are once again bringing borders into a borderless economy. But good catch that only a select few MM will know to take proper advantage of this opportunity. I think someone else asked but will there be a proper GUI for this? Ideally this LB thing would provide liquidity on both sides. But that is not what we are voting for.
I dont know your stake or investment or commitment to tezos and im not here to question how much you hold or what you have done for the ecosystem, but your train of thought is that of someone with not much risk who doesnt have too much skin in the game and is with whatever happens happens because it wont affect u regardless good or bad. You fail to understand that there are large holders here who have invested much time and effort into building tezos to what it is and its not such an easy decision to decide on such a “game changing” protocol without putting some thought into it and understanding the potential ramification of such changes.
And to put aside bias, i have no affiliation with Kusd or tzbtc or any coin for that matter. I am only a committed baker who has been here since day one and i dont take this protocol change lightly. The people who do have affiliations with other coins or pairs are bringing up good points and understanding those points are important. Being a creator of a coin means nothing past what the title is. Especially if its a coin that was ico’d and they received what they wanted and then some . Not to take any credit away from Arthur, he is brilliant , but to blindly believe everyones agenda is in line is foolish. Dont be naive to think everyone thinks like you and wants the same thing. One phrase that has never led me wrong is trust, but verify, and make sure to understand who has the most to gain in any circumstance. After all this is crypto and a business.
I have never proposed kUSD/XTZ as a liquidity pool for this incentive. In fact, I don’t think kUSD would be appropriate given there is too little liquidity and the debt ceiling is too low. It will take time for kUSD to grow enough liquidity for it to be large enough.
That is a fair point. We need to encourage more decentralized protocols on Tezos. Nice alternatives would be synthetic assets like a synthetic version of BTC, backed by Tez as collateral, or an algorithmic stablecoin with sufficient liquidity (kUSD does not yet have sufficient liquidity with only 2MM debt ceiling).
In the absence of decentralized tokens on Tezos with sufficient liquidity, wDAI, wUSDC, or wUSDT are good alternatives.
Excuse me my intervention, It was to my knowledge that the primary advantage of AMM over Orderbooks is that there will always be liquidity for otherwise illiquid markets. So if kUSD was used instead of tzBTC, wouldn’t the AMM protocol provide liquidity for that illiquid market, making it viable? tzBTC is used because is liquid ONCE is converted back to BTC. So it has access to the ultimate liquid market which is BTC, but that doesn’t make tzBTC liquid in the form of FA based token.
I think it’s important to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is ready now, and there’s a good chance that it will significantly improve liquidity. A better alternative to tzBTC can be adopted if and when one becomes available. From the discussion here there doesn’t seem to be an obvious contender available right now, and I don’t think there’s much sense in waiting an indefinite amount of time for something great if we can have something good immediately.
On the bright side, it seems like everyone is happy with all the other changes in Granada!
I can assure you that Luke just as much as Arthur has Tezos best interest at heart. I am 100% certain that Arthur, Keefer and Luke are all Tezos Maxis and neither cares more than the other about its future. Arthur of course is foundational behind Tezos but he is not Tezos itself. It is very important that we have technically informed and knowledgable community members such as Luke, Keefer and even Arthur ( if this were the other way which it has been ) raising questions and awareness to protocol upgrades.
What we’ve learned through bootstrapping kUSD is that liquidity requires two things:
Sufficient collateral backing kUSD
Use cases, or things to do with your kUSD once you’ve minted it
With more uses for your kUSD like DeFi, more desire for kUSD will cause more people to put their Tez in an oven and mint more, increasing liquidity. But the use cases are hard to come by initially. Simply providing liquidity on a DEX in itself does not provide enough revenue through fees to justify the risk of being an LP.
You have a good point that this would help increase the demand for kUSD, which should increase liquidity by encouraging more people to put Tez in an oven and mint more kUSD, but we’d like to do this slowly and at a more measured pace so that kUSD stays close to $1 and doesn’t lose the peg due to high demand in the short term.
The way I look at bootstrapping liquidity is like a multi-level escalator. You increase demand by creating a new use for your token, like buying NFTs or participating in auctions or prediction markets, which lets you rise up a floor on the escalator, then you increase the debt ceiling, and walk over to the next escalator, riding the next use case up to a new level of liquidity. It takes time to do it properly and avoid distortions in the market that lead to extreme events.
Apologies for the long off-topic post, but it might be relevant as we consider how to bring more liquidity to Tezos in general.
Disappointing to see the amount of ad hominem arguments on this thread.
I’ll share my portion of guilt for not engaging earlier in the process. We all need to engage early, not just after people put a lot of effort into actually implementing a proposal and broadcast it on the network.
I could say a lot more, but I rather not burn bridges today, so instead I’ll just re-post this which basically summarizes my opinion as of now:
Assuming that we all agree that Liquidity Baking is, in principle, not just good but potentially critical for Tezos. Hope we can move on and work on improving all aspects of future proposals.
Disclaimer: I have no idea if ‘tBTC’ is actually an ongoing project. But if it isn’t, it should.
Edit: I am in principle against providing liquidity to fiat-based (USD) stable token. BTC is liquid enough and allows for fully transparent custody.
It doesn’t mean that everything he says should be accepted by the community without a dispute.
We’re all tez holders here and interested in the best for tezos
First off there’s no stake in kusd as it’s a stablecoin, there’s no stake in kolibri, it’s a DAO and guys do have tokens of it.
I’m not a stakeholder or whatever you might call it but I raised concerns about tzbtc months ago.
Nevertheless Luke admitted that kusd doesn’t fit here because it doesn’t have liquidity and to me wUSDT/wUSDC sound way better, though I’m not sure it’s been properly tested.
Nope. LB is to make tez liquid by using a pair with an asset that is liquid somewhere else to bring liquidity to tez.
tzbtc (arguably) brings tez liquidity of btc. if it was easy to convert without KYC, you’d get tez liquidity of the whole xtz/btc market
on the other hand kUSD doesn’t have this liquidity, it can’t be swapped to a liquid asset
I don’t know if you got an answer for these two questions so sorry if this was already said:
there a script in the Tezos codebase that copies src/proto_alpha into a new directory and performs the required renames where they are required. It is scripts/snapshot_alpha.sh. It will also copy the documentation so you probably want to rm -rf docs/010/ before calling it.
The CPMM script used in Liquidity Baking only supports FA1.2 but it is based on Dexter v2 which supports both FA1.2 and FA2 so adapting the CPMM to support FA2 is not a lot of work but definitely not a one-line change. Also, the CPMM in its current form has been the object of much more testing and verification that would need to be redone.
That’s true but it pollutes the chain with a pair of smart contracts that are probably not going to be used much because without the subsidy it is less interesting to provide liquidity on them than on Dexter or Quipuswap. An alternative one-line change to deactivate Liquidity Baking is to remove the line that originates the CPMM and its liquidity token FA1.2 contract during the migration; if the CPMM is not found the protocol does not send the subsidy but nothing else should break.
