Episode 140: May 6, 2021
10:10: Forum at a Glance
11:49: Protocol Engineering Team Update
20:42: Risk Team Update
26:19: Real World Finance Update
31:30: Growth Core Unit Update
41:53: Operational Support Team Update
50:20: MIPs Update
59:33: Anonymous Question Box Update
1:06:17: Monthly Financial Report
1:16:56: Open Discussion
Agenda and Preamble
- Hello everyone, and welcome to the MakerDAO Scientific Governance and Risk meeting number 140 taking place on Thursday, May 6th at 17:00 UTC. My name is LongForWisdom. I’m the Governance Facilitator for MakerDAO.
- We have our usual agenda to get through this week. We have updates from all the major Core Units, MIPs submission review, and a segment with SebVentures about the MakerDAO monthly financials for April.
- If you want to ask questions or have comments, please do speak up. Everyone here enjoys answering questions.
- We recently set up an anonymous question box. So if anybody has questions, feel free to submit them in that box. Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to discuss them in the following meetings.
Last week’s executive vote has passed. This brought us Liquidations 2.0 on the largest Vault types, including ETH-A, WBTC-A, ETH-B, and ETH-C. It also added a DeFiSaver as an oracle light feed, increasing the number of light feeds and off-boarded one oracle dark feed that we had decided to retire. Overall, that was a big step forward, especially for Liq 2.0. Protocol Engineering will have comments on it later.
- We’ve got two polls adding more Vaults to the Liq 2.0 framework, the ERC20 vaults that aren’t Uniswap LPs. There’s also a poll to decrease the UNI-V2-DAI-USDCA liquidation ratio from 110% to 105%, which also passed. These changes will make it into the executive this week on Friday. They will be joined by the Core Unit Budget Distributions for May. So, therefore, the setup we’re falling into is to do the monthly distributions of budgets on the first executive of the month tomorrow. This would involve all the core units except for Protocol Engineering because they already had this part of the monthly cycle.
- DSpot has pushed a new version of the MIPs portal to the live production URL. This brings some cool functionality involving advanced filtering and searches options, which can be combined with MIP tags to help construct relative lists of MIPs, whatever list of whatever MIPs you want. As an example, we can list accepted technical MIPs that have not yet been implemented. This can help Protocol Engineering know what’s in the queue to work on. We can set up a view that shows all the currently active budgets or proposals and see the latest budget from all the Core Units or active declarations to intent, stuff like that. A huge thanks to DSpot and Pablo for working on that.
- We’ve also been working with delegates over the last week. We had a meeting, and I’ve been having some async discussions with community members who might want to be the first delegates. We are figuring out what Gov Alpha needs to produce for the delegates and what the delegates need to produce, attempting to plan a coordinated launch for delegation. More on that as things progress.
- We’ve also been working on our ongoing budget for the next quarter, which will be in the forum by next Wednesday for the next Governance cycle.
- There have also been other initiatives that we’ve been pursuing; Eli’s spoke to Snapshots about getting set up for KR. Snapshot is a voting system that many other protocols use.
- Eli’s also been working on reorganizing the forum again. I know we’ve just changed it fairly recently, but this is an ongoing process to make it more accessible and functional. It’s important that as it grows, we do not let it get out of control.
- Finally, purely on a personal note and because a couple of you mentioned it in the last few meetings, the MKR compensation working group is still meeting regularly. We are planning to have something on the 10th, which is next Monday.
- David: Regarding the compensation working group, there was talk about trying to recruit somebody from the outside to weigh in. Has that person ever been found, and what’s the status of the working group members?
- LongForWisdom: We made efforts to try and find someone external. We spoke to a couple of references that came through. However, the timeline was too tight to really further pursue any of those. We spoke to some of the VCs as well, the larger MKR holders, who are not quite 3rd parties, to get them to provide feedback and input. However, we had conversations with a couple of them, and they were busy. But it’s been going fairly well so far.
- Aaron (chat): Is delegation open to anyone? It sounds exclusive based on you having meetings with the first users.
- LongForWisdom: There’ll be a delegation contract factory that anyone can set up and use to set up the delegate contracts. They can do whatever they want; They can speak to MKR holders privately and convince them to delegate. It will always be open for anyone to use that contract and to become a delegate. We’re going to try and set it up so there are some public delegates and help delegates get more visibility. We will standardize some stuff like personal statements from the delegates and set up communications channels, and stuff, where the community can talk to them and delegates can talk to each other to clearly communicate and discuss why they’re voting the way they’re voting. It is going to be entirely opt-in. It’s not exclusive in any way. Holders who aren’t heavily involved in the community can see some of the potential delegates and get a good idea of who they want to delegate to.
Forum at a Glance
Forum at a Glance - Forum Thread
If you have the time to read over and vote inactive threads, that would be much appreciated.
- DAI slippage is down to 0.06% on a $10,000 trade.
- A record 4.4B DAI is currently in circulation.
- Total volume locked in Maker is $12.3B.
- As part of its dissolvement, Maker Foundation has transferred 84,000 MKR to Governance from the Development Fund.
Protocol Engineering Team Update
- We have 10 collateral types that we’re putting in this week. All the remaining collateral types are, shall we say, standard, typical first-order collateral types; non-LP tokens and non-stablecoins. These are UNI, ZRX, AAVE, BAT, renBTC, LRC, MANA, COMP, KNC, and BAL, which will be done this week. Then, we’ve been working with the mandated actors and figuring out the proper rollout for the upcoming weeks, which may change the schedule a little bit. All the LP tokens have been scheduled for next week. Also, we’re at the block gas limit for what we can do in one of these spells. Risk also wanted more time to think about stablecoins. Thereby, we yanked those stable coins out to contribute to the block gas limit. We also have the LP oracle reviews coming in. We feel confident about that code. We’re thinking about flipping next week to be the LP oracle updates for all of the LP tokens. This would give Risk more time to do their assessments on each LP tokens. The following week, we would do all of the LP tokens. The week after that, we would do all of the stablecoins. The only one with liquidations on is USDT. I should mention that the LP token for DAI-USDC would be in the stablecoin batch. I know that’s a lot to think through without a diagram, but we’re a little up in the air about what we want to deploy. That’s four more weeks of Liq 2.0 and LP Oracle updates. We’re also doing the other Core Unit Budget Distributions in this upcoming spell.
- Big milestone: Liq 2.0 is released for all ETH and WBTC, our largest collateral types. We are mostly out of the woods on Liq 1.2 risk. In fact, we’re in a pretty good situation right now. We’ve been putting work into the backstop keeper to ensure that people can run it. It doesn’t take a lot of people to run it to backstop the protocol. We know of one other keeper group that’s up and running. We observed an unknown keeper in the wild using Sushiswap as their backstop, and they were doing the flash lending. So there’s quite a bit of coverage from the keeper side, and I think Derek and the JS team will release the Web3 Metamask UI by the end of the day. Through that, anyone will be able to show up with a Metamask wallet. As long as you have some DAI in your wallet, you’ll be able to participate in liquidation. It looks like there’s a good yield to be had.
- Aside from that, we’ve got a bunch of big reviews going on right now. We’ve got the DssVest contract that we’ve been looking at. There are the delegate voting changes to the voting proxy that we’ve got out for review. The Sushi joint adapter is out for audits, and we were also spending a lot of time on the Optimism DAI bridge this week.
- Brian McMichael: The DssExec Lib did undergo the update to Liq 2.0. We should be able to start onboarding collaterals directly with Liq 2.0 features out of the box.
- Matthew Rabinowitz: Are there any other L2 bridges that you guys are looking at right now? ZKSync or others?
- Chris: Yes, there are. It’s mostly Bartek and Chris that have been taking a look at that. We were talking about, I’m forgetting the name of it, begins with an ‘A.’
- Krzystof Kaczor: Arbitrum
- Chris: Yes. We were talking about that one yesterday.
- Krzystof Kaczor: It’s another layer tool that has native bridges like ZKSync. It has a lot of DAI. It’s a generic bridge. When they are launched with a generic message-passing, we can develop some better DAI, more native. But for now, there are no smart contracts on the ZKSync.
- Matthew Rabinowitz: Not yet. But that’s to be launched in the next 60 days. So the question I had was more towards planning of using Optimism and having the equivalent of almost an EBM home for doing something with Maker rather than just transferring DAI around. If ZKSync begins to support EBM or other L2 components, do we plan to have homes in other L2 EBM areas?
- Chris: The answer is broadly yes. We haven’t looked in-depth at other bridges. We’re currently looking for anything that’s permissionless and allows us to go across. I will say that for Optimism, in addition to just moving DAI across, we actually have the facility to send across governance actions. The pause proxy can send a message across the bridge and then for that message to be executed on the Optimism side. That’ll allow us a good playground on Optimism. If we can, we will try and extend that methodology to other more permissionless bridges.
- Chris: I should also mention to the DAO that hiring is going very well. We’ve made an offer and had a candidate accept that offer, but they won’t start for a little while. However, we’re receiving very strong candidates. I want to ensure that all the MKR holders know that voting for the team’s budget and incentives has its desired effect. Other teams are having difficulty sourcing talented people to work for them. Nevertheless, we have people coming to us. Congratulations!
Risk Team Update
- We are about to publish proposed parameters for Liq 2.0 for some of the UNI LPs. As Chris mentioned, we need to make full implementations after next week. Therefore, we will propose parameters, first for LPs that have a relatively higher debt exposure. Because the auction price could be different this time, we decided to go with the LPs with similar parameters. There are three types of LPs: stablecoin-volatile pair, volatile-volatile pair, and stablecoin-stablecoin pair.
- We’re going to start with stablecoin-volatile UNI pairs because their exposure is the biggest. The idea is to make the auction price flatter because those pairs are about 50% less volatile than the average collateral that Maker holds. We’re also thinking about making the expected duration 60 minutes, instead of the previous 40 minutes. That’s because a flash loan type option settlement is more complex than the UNI LPs. So you need to take extra steps, and we are not sure how many keepers will have this implementation ready from the start. Finally, we may propose a lower auction throughput by limiting the pending auction amount—generally, a bit more conservative auction parameters for UNI LPs.
- We began working on Sushi LP risk evaluations, beginning with pairs with the highest pool liquidity and APY. These are mostly stablecoin-ETH pairs, such as DAI-ETH, USDC-ETH, but could also include renBTC-ETH because their pool is the biggest. We should have these evaluations ready next week.
- The Parameter Proposal Group released a new proposal for May. This month’s changes are light: we try to make the users unwind their positions in stablecoin Vaults. Similarly, we proposed the KNC token, which is being migrated to a new version. Finally, we lowered the ETH-C stability fee to incentivize higher usage on a safer ETH vault.
- Next week, we are aiming to release some interesting models. They will still be in beta. The idea is to deploy our risk calculations to a web app. The community will check the latest risk premiums based on the state of the world, on the liquidity, input metrics, etc. It’ll be for every collateral that Maker holds. Potentially, we’ll deploy a version where the users will tweak the inputs and simulate outputs.
- Lastly, there’s a deadline for the quarterly adjustment next week. We have new members in our team who replaced people that couldn’t devote much time. Together, we are specifically dedicated to building this risk web app. We contacted community members who do awesome work with various Maker data analytics. Some tools are risk-related, and we decided to allocate a part of our grant budget to have them compensated for that.
- LongForWisdom: Thanks, Primoz. The Risk roadmap you mentioned sounds pretty cool.
- Primoz Kordez: Yes, all the links we share in Google Sheets are not user-friendly. It’s still in beta, but hopefully, it’ll be interesting to see and play with.
Real-World Finance Team Update
- I’ve just published the monthly reports of the Core Unit and the financial reports discussed later in this call and the RWA report.
- We will create a RWA committee that would be a layer between the RWF Team that provides risk assessments and provides some RWA reports and Governance that may want to have something more actionable than only risk assessments. We will publish some risk assessments next week. They are all more than 20 pages. It’s a good idea to have a committee decide what is a good asset and modify the DC or stability fees. Interest rates in the real world are not permanently fixed. It would be great to avoid having too much of a burden on MKR or Governance and delegate some stuff to a committee. Obviously, the RWF Team will be part of it but won’t have any say.
- On the legal side, we worked on documentation to help Arnold & Porter, LLP, to be up to date with Maker. Next week, we are focusing on getting four Centrifuge assets to be ready for onboarding at the end of the month. We will have the risk assessment for all of them published next week. These are ConsoleFreight, which already has a risk assessment. Moss Carbon Credit; the risk assessment is almost done. Fortunafi, which is a revenue base of finance. And People’s Company, which is farmland. The idea is to have a big batch, and Governance will decide which will be onboarded.
- Last item: Matthew published a lot of documentation on the trust model on the forum last week. Please, review those documents.
- LongForWisdom: The committee you mentioned; Would that work in the same way as the open market committee parameter proposal group currently for crypto assets?
- Sébastien Derivaux: Yes. We saw that the Maker open market committee solved many issues. Last December, we spent a lot of time on the forum arguing on the DC and stability fees and all that stuff. Now it’s been quiet on that front. We can focus on other stuff. That’s the whole of the RWA committee, but maybe more on reading the risk assessment and making strategies for expressing an opinion. It’s difficult for the RWF Team to say this ‘asset is not good,’ ‘you shouldn’t invest,’ or ‘this one is super good.’ It’s always balanced and difficult. That’s why we need a community of diverse people to speak as a group on whether an asset is good to invest in because it’s too much work for each MKR holder to digest all the reports.
- LongForWisdom: Yeah. That makes a lot of sense.
Growth Core Unit Update
Growth CU Weekly Update
- This week, we are reorganizing the group and exploring new opportunities in other geographies. We want to focus on Africa, more exactly Nigeria. We began to work with Binance’s peer-to-peer network to expand Dai as a savings currency in Nigeria. It’s an interesting country for us because there are no other available stable coins. People in Nigeria need a different currency than the one they currently have. We are also talking with other crypto companies looking for alternatives to manage the on and offramp of crypto after the ban they had suffered. We are giving them options from things that we personally learned. In some Latin American countries, the same happened, and we have experience with that.
- We are also talking with various funds. Many funds want to open a Vault, but they want changes in the risk parameters. They want to open these big Vaults and mint a lot of Dai, but they prefer the terms. I don’t know if we have spoken about this in the past. Are we interested in special and customed-made Vaults for these huge funds that would open a billion Dai Vault but with specific parameters?
- In Latin America, we are finding many partners who are exploring other sidechains or L2 solutions due to gas fees. However, these last few weeks, the gas fees have been exceptionally low. These potential partners are exploring Binance, SmartChain, Polygon, and RSK because they are in Latin America. I support what Matt mentioned: we have to begin looking toward other chains. When we were in the Foundation, we worked with many different chains, and we helped create the bridge. For example, RSK and Clayton are examples of those networks. We should be more focused on that. It’s a huge opportunity, and we need to be more proactive. Besides having Dai on Binance and SmartChain, we should start thinking if we could do something else.
- Finally, Jen closed the integration with BitPay. This is huge. Dai will be used to pay via BitPay, and it will also be used as a settlement currency.
- Jen Senhaji: I can elaborate on the BitPay deal. This is exciting for us. It’s been a long time in the making. What that immediately provides to Dai is access to all of the merchants on BitPay’s network, such as Microsoft, Twitch, American Red Cross, Newegg, and even private jets. The CMO of one of these jet companies told me that they’re one of the higher volume merchants as of late. Many people who are doing well in this full cycle are riding around more often in private jets. If anybody wants to book a jet with their Dai, they may do so through BitPay. They also have a gift card network within their app with many major brands where you can easily make purchases using Dai. They do settlements in cryptocurrency within over 200 countries. They also have a service where you can do invoicing. Even if you are not a merchant, setting up an account with BitPay and doing payroll or other types of cross-border payment through their dashboard is possible with Dai. They recently launched a Visa debit card that allows you to make purchases with any of the cryptos they support, including Dai. This allows us to work more closely with some of these big merchants, like Twitch. Think about cool co-promotion opportunities as we figure out what we want to do from a marketing standpoint in the next months. We are excited and look forward to using some of these services as a Dai holder.
- Nadia: Concerning admin stuff, we are looking for someone in Europe to join our team. If you know anybody interested in being part of the team, send me a message. We are also incorporating our company. that is a very important part of what we do. We usually have to sign agreements with partners, and we need a legal entity to back up those agreements. I hope that by the end of the month we have everything set up. We are also reorganizing our CRM. This week has been great because we spoke with the RWA Core Unit and the Content Core Unit. We are trying to include them in our process and into our CRM to understand what other teams are doing and collaborate between Core Units.
- Jerry G (chat): Would these large interested parties be using specific types of collateral or collaterals that vaults already exist for?
- Nadia: They are interested in collaterals that are already onboarded. However, they ask for different risk parameters. If they want to open a billion-dollar Vault, that’s something to think about.
Operational Support Update
- The Know Your MIP on Direct Deposit Module is up. There are no new Know Your MIPs or Collateral Onboarding calls coming up.
- We’re slowing down in terms of the number of new proposals for core units that are coming in. We’re thinking of it in terms of waves. The first wave was Risk, Governance, and RWF, and those are complete. They’re growing, received budgets, and we have all the updates. We’ve just completed wave two, which is a total of seven core units. Then, finally, we’re coming into wave three, a formal submission of two core units, with one still in RFC.
- Regarding core units, a few interesting questions came up. One of them is around different principles. Some core units have their vision of what Maker should do or where they should go. At the same time, another core unit will not be in conflict but will have different principles or different ways to get there. It’s interesting to watch these things being resolved. The question is if they’re not resolved, is it something we should keep an eye on, or let it resolve itself? As long as we have the same end goal, it gets resolved on its own, but we want to keep an eye on that.
- Another question concerns considering standardizing and striving for consistency. When we were at wave one, Matt asked when we would go through something like compensation that the holders wouldn’t have to go through each of these different variations. Now that we’ve gone through the third wave, we’re asking similar questions. We’ve been trying to figure that out, notably around budget reporting. There’s no one way to do the budgets, and different teams have done them differently. So the question for us is whether we should continue developing a better model for consistency.
- Are we allowing core units to nurture their treasury with the budget they requested? What might be the conflicts? Nobody has said they were going to do that, but we might have a case like that.
- A smaller question came up from talking to individuals. We have many core units which bring domain expertise with strong strategies; we expect core units to be super polished. At the same time, there hasn’t been much room for those still in development. When getting hired by a regular company, is there an expectation in what to do right away? Are you rather joining a smaller group which is the strategic side of the larger group? The expectations there are a bit different. As smaller groups appear in Maker, more people ask about contributing in leaner aspects that don’t fit into the existing core units. The question is, how should we make way for that?
- We have weekly office hours now with Governance, Protocol Engineering, Content Production, and Growth. They’re informal and not recorded; feel free to drop by and ask questions.
- LongForWisdom: Great, thank you, Amy. I’ll echo that office hour are a good habit for core units to get into. I’m hoping all the core units will find time for that in the future. Also, it will be valuable to keep channels of communications between core unit members and the Governance open.
Charles St. Louis
- All those listed proposals will move to inclusion polls next Monday. We will bundle the Core Units proposals into their each poll. Some community members have strong feelings about a few of the proposals coming through this month. If you haven’t noticed this, check out the forum threads for these proposals. If you are concerned, start raising awareness.
Anonymous Question Box Discussion
- We have one suggestion from the Anonymous Question Box. The suggestion was titled “Cut down the Core Units presenting during the G&R call.” I’ll go ahead and read it out: “Since this is a Governance & Risk call, please only allow Governance actors, Smart Contracts team, Risk, MIP editors, and Oracle’s teams to perform their presentation to the community on Thursdays. Core Units like RWAs, Operational Support, and Growth can meet every other Friday, titled RWAs, OS, and Growth bi-weekly call. Thus, the community will get more out of discussions pertaining only to Governance & Risk”.
- We spoke about that during our last meeting, but I’m happy to entertain some discussion here. The only other suggestion was asking for six million dollars, so we don’t need to go into that, haha.
- LongForWisdom: Yes. We’ve been thinking about this as well as it’s been mentioned before. I’m worried that with multiple meetings, it’s difficult to draw the line between cutting people off from the Thursday meeting and pushing them to the auxiliary meeting. The justification that this is just Governance & Risk seems flimsy considering that the suggestion included Smart Contracts and Oracles. If you will include Smart Contracts and Oracles, why not RWF? that can have risk issues, right? I’m skeptical about drawing a line and saying, “these people should be in the meeting, and others shouldn’t.” I’m open if anybody has feedback.
- David Utrobin: I like this call for a weekly town hall for all the Core Units. Yes, it’s Governance & Risk, but part of Governance is to have a weekly update and place where you can de-silo information sharing. So having all the Core Units have a voice on a single call every week is an important backbone that we should preserve at MakerDAO.
- Brian McMichael: If we put another meeting on the calendar, that’s another hour a week that the rest of us will break off and not be writing code. Maybe the solution could be to change the name of the meeting, if that is the problem, to the Weekly Town Hall. It is nice to have this one meeting to get the whole cake of what’s going on. Even in the Protocol Engineering team, we are in the middle of the system. Still, we don’t keep track of everything that is going on because we are heads down.
- David Utrobin: If people are interested in more in-depth information about specific Core Units or things like Risk, Governance decisions, engineering details, and problems, there should be the Office Hours Call. Also, teams should be proactive about documentation and sharing certain things that would be interesting to stakeholders. The point being, supplemental calls are good.
- Schuppi: I don’t know if this needs to be done once a week. Maybe every two weeks is fine enough, and having a 5-minute sum-up of what we’ve been doing, what we are doing in the next week, and what we are focusing on. It doesn’t need to take long. Chris is doing it for Smart Contracts; it’s exactly the right amount of information. I don’t like the idea of having an update on Governance and Risk. There are so many parts relevant to what we are achieving or trying to achieve. Maybe the title of the meeting is wrong. If we had a second meeting, then I would go to the second meeting. If it takes 17 minutes, it’s good information for me.
- Matthew Robinowitz: Schuppi’s opinion mixed with a combination of office hours within the specific domains provides a great opportunity for people to ask questions. Within a year, we will find ourselves with ten times the content but still need a way to break it up. Those office hours are going to be essential, in my view, but this summary package is a great way to deliver the content in an hour and a half.
- LongForWisdom: I’m hearing a lot of positive sentiments. Sometimes is easier to share positive sentiments than negative ones. If anybody thinks otherwise, please feel free to get in touch with me. Several people have suggested changing the name of the call., which is something we can look into.
Other Presentations and Updates
Monthly Financial Report
- The average yield is lower than March because the mix between all the Vaults facilities changed significantly. Two months ago, we decreased the stability fees on some smaller Vaults, and now there is usage on those. We are still highly dependent on ETH. This chart only has ETH-A, but we also have ETH-B and ETH-C. Most of the income is still coming from ETH, and the rest is diversified.
- On the loan side, we crossed the two billion mark.
- For the first time last month, someone was converting DAI to USDC. We have some outflows on the PSM (the red lines). Soon after, there was a lot of DAI demand again, and the PSM grew again. We are not making as much money on the outflows because the fees are four business points, while on the inflow, the fees are ten business points. It’s too early to tell if Uniswap V3 will change something or not. Nonetheless, it’s still a good amount of money, 150,000 Dai. The inventory of stablecoins is up to one billion due to the significant increase in PAX. We have 100 million PAX tokens, but that was the main Vault user, and the PAX Vaults are not generating any fees. That’s why the Maker open market committee will make the proposal to decrease the DC of PAX.
- At the end of last month, we were close to 4 million. We are above, and we have 27 liquidity reserves, which gives you the amount of stable coin we have to sustain a decreased demand of DAI. If 27% of DAI want to change from DAI to USDC, PAX, or whatever, the price of DAI will remain the same.
- There was growth in all stablecoins and mainly in BUSD. BUSD is continuing to win market share over USDT because Binance is the first exchange, and there was a lot of USDT on Binance. So now it’s going to BUSD. USDC and DAI remain constant more or less. We are at 11% since September of last year. In February, we were at 17%, but it was mainly due to a big transaction. So we stayed flat on the market share, which is maybe something we need to improve going forward. At the same time, we have a huge liquidity pool of stablecoins.
- This is half the bad news: The recurring earning yield was down from last month. It is not because we are making less money. On the contrary, we are making more money than last month, but as the MKR price increased by 100%, it is no good for the recurring earnings yield, which is annualized.
- LongForWisdom: Regarding the on-chain transfer of stablecoins, is that ETH or other chains as well?
- Sébastien Derivaux: It’s only ETH. There is a lot of value to get from analyzing the transactions because it’s difficult to clearly understand what is happening. For instance, we can track the balance of DAI, USDC, and all the stablecoins at each exchange. Tracking some exchanges in specific markets is obvious. For example, Binance is worldwide, but some exchanges are mainly in Asia and others in Latin America. Finally, we can track where DAI is getting more traction, but it is a lot of work.
- LongForWisdom: It makes more sense to focus on specific protocols, such as all of the stablecoins used in Uniswap for trades. Would it be worth comparing the Uniswap trade volume on DAI versus USDC?
- Sébastien Derivaux: Yes, and following to IUSD and LUSD liquidity protocol. Suppose you have a lot of DAI in Compound but expect that Uniswap V3 will destroy Compound or only destroy Uniswap V2 by being more capital efficient. In that case, you can predict that the DAI demand will decrease significantly. We have a lot of DAI on Compound and Uniswap V2. which can be important for the protocol. If we have 1 billion DAI used in Uniswap V2 and Compound, which I think is the case, all the transfers are going through Uniswap V3. If this capital is no longer needed and people stop farming, they may repay the loan. Thereby, DAI demand will decrease, and we will make fewer fees. One billion, when you have only three million of loan on standing, is a lot. That can be an issue, but I don’t know yet. I’m not planning time this month to work on that subject.
- Will Remor: I’ve seen reports done by some of the analytics team on predicting future evaluations from many cache files accumulating from all the stablecoins. They performed some backtesting on previous moments in the market when cache files had accumulated. But, still, it was the outflow of that accumulation into actual evaluations of different protocols. We found it may be something that we should keep an eye on for the amount of liquidity coming into the system.
- Sébastien Derivaux: Yes, it makes sense.
- Will Remor: We want to potentially keep track of what is going on in finance matching because there’s a lot of projects. We should publish once every week for products to promote some hype to bring in users. There’s been some virtualization, especially in the DEX market.
- Sébastien Derivaux: Yes, that’s true. However, I have decided that the Binance chain doesn’t exist, so…
- Will Remor: Many people, like me, ignored it for a long time, and then people from my family who weren’t involved in crypto begin telling me, “Hey, I’m doing such and such on Binance,” which shocked me.
- Sébastien Derivaux: Yes, I had the same experience. We should focus more energy to look into what Binance is doing.
- Will Remor: Binance is taking the place of EOS in the Ethereum community since a few years ago. A lot of water under the bridge has passed since then, and now Binance is doing the same thing.
- LongForWisdom: Please, remember the Anonymous Question Box. Also, feel free to leave a comment on YouTube, and we’ll get to it in the next meeting.
- Christopher Mooney: I spent most of this call having a heart attack because the total value locked on DeFi pulse dropped, but I think I figured out the bug in their script. Everything is fine. DAI Stats is getting the correct numbers.
Common Abbreviated Terms
CR: Collateralization Ratio
DC: Debt Ceiling
ES: Emergency Shutdown
SF: Stability Fee
DSR: Dai Savings Rate
MIP: Maker Improvement Proposal
OSM: Oracle Security Module
LR: Liquidation Ratio
RWA: Real-World Asset
RWF: Real-World Finance
SC: Smart Contracts
- Artem Gordon produced this summary.
- David Utrobin produced this summary.
- Gala Guillén produced this summary.
- Jose Ferrari produced this summary.
- Sonya Olechnowicz produced this summary.
- Everyone who spoke and presented on the call, listed in the headers.