Liquidations 2.0 Phase In

Prior proposal was judged somewhat interesting but definitely too complex.

This proposal achieves all of the Pros and removes most of the complexity and all of the technical risk.

To phase in Liquidations 2.0 for a Vault type, create a duplicate but with Liquidations 2.0 for all new deposits, and cap original vault at outstanding debt level:

For example, for ETH-A:

ETH-A DC 540m → 270m (cap at outstanding 336m, goal is half of total)
ETH-C DC 200m (approximate amount available on ETH-A, so increase as ETH-A outstanding decreases)

This can be expected to achieve the most interesting Pro of the prior proposal:

  • Experiment to see which one gets better collateral prices

All without any development effort, added complexity, or technical risk.

How would you prefer to phase in Liquidations 2.0 for a Vault type?

  • Update the vault to use Liquidations 2.0 (having total debt ceiling)
  • Fork the vault to one using Liquidations 2.0 (sharing total debt ceiling)
  • Not sure, need more information
  • Abstain

0 voters

Poll runs until 2020-10-31 13:00 UTC

1 Like

Rather than starting with ETH, we can minimize risk by starting with small value assets like MANA.


Well, I’d think a lot of testing would be done for Liquidations 2.0.

I’d want ETH to be using liquidations 2.0 as you’d think it’d be safer.