Ithaca-Ipanema 2 (PscPJfNBh)

This is the Ithaca upgrade with one amendment (‘Ipanema’ amendment) to switch the Liquidity Baking subsidy from the failed tzBTC-XTZ pairing to a USDtz-XTZ pairing, which is far more capable for producing the goal liquidity amount which tzBTC never came close to achieving, as well as far more capable of producing enough volume to mitigate the LB subsidy let alone benefit the Tezos ecosystem. LB with a scaled USDtz will lead to algocoins being more scalable while maintaining stronger pegs at lower stability fees. It will also extend convertibility to the rest of the Tezos DeFi ecosystem, enabling more liquidity across the ecosystem in a multiplier effect. The last time this was proposed it achieved 45% of the vote.

USDtz updates based on last time:

  • Multi-sig implementation on both administrative and collateral contracts
  • US participation agreement reached, to be implemented before March 1st

Agora threads:

  1. Original thread for ‘H’ upgrade
  2. New thread for ‘I’ upgrade
2 Likes

Nice. We have upvoted. A USD/XTZ pair is much better for LB

Some questions about the Ithaca-Ipanema 2 (PscPJfNBh) proposal;

  1. Where’s the source code for this proposal?
  2. Where are the change-logs?
  3. Has the MR undergone code-review? Where can I find the reviews?
  4. Are there diffs between this proposal and Ithaca2 (My baseline, as I’m relatively familiar with that proposal) or Hangzhou?
  5. Is there a testnet where the transition from Hangzhou to this proposal has occurred?
  6. In what capacity or to what extent has the transition been tested?
    6.1. Where can I see the results of that testing?
    6.2. What scenarios for the LB have been tested prior to and after

An observation;

Questions 1-5 help me inform myself on the fitness of a proposal, before even considering what the proposal proposes to do. Question 6 touches on some practical items of the LB stuff.

With three days left in the promotion phase, and on a weekend, there’s not much time to do any diligence on this proposal.

1 Like

Your question are valid, I find it funny you did not ask the same for the No-LB option.

The developers behind the tenderbaker+LB option are the same ones behind the no-LB option. They did provide all of these details already. They provided information that the two proposals are identical, with one change: The commit that extended the sunset date of LB, was reverted, in order for it to not be extended

Their thread on the matter: About Liquidity Baking (LB) - #8 by kusje

Details on the commits: Ithaca 2 no-LB (PtGaNoLBZ) - #3 by PosDog

Pointing out the one change: About Liquidity Baking (LB) - #25 by galfour

As I’ve mentioned in multiple places, I share Jev’s concern about the transition between the two. The repeated lack of information around it, is a large source of concern for me.

This is much more than a proposal adding a new feature. This is a proposal to change something to another contract, that is being used by many apps already. If this isn’t managed well, this could cause a lot of backlash from the community with regards the reliability of Tezos.

  • Has work been done to update on-chain constants so that apps can find the new contract?
  • Does the old constant still appear so apps can allow users to withdraw from one and add to the other?
  • Have the app makers confirmed that they have time to build a migration flow from one LB contract to another, explaining that the subsidy has ended and they need to migrate to continue receiving interest?
  • Some of the bakers pushing for no-LB have expressed concerns about what happens to the value of Liquidity, when the subsidy ends, and users try to withdraw. Has any thought been put into this with regards switching? Has it been simulated/tested?
  • There are some institutional investors providing liquidity to LB (to the best of my knowledge), has there been any conversation with them in regards to this? Have they signed up to convert their liquidity to USDtz?