[Signal Request] tin/tout parameters for new PSMs

I voted yes for the parameters but would like to treat it more as an “experiment” than a firm endorsement. I worry that since USDC has such higher liquidity than these other stablecoins, people will continue to only use USDC and just push up the Dai peg. If this is happening I’d like to see the tin rate lowered back down.

Regarding debt ceilings, I feel a bit in the dark. Is it possible to see the analysis of the recommendations and what the MOMC would prefer? I have no idea what the process is to redeem 1B BUSD if it ever came to that.


This should be a key in the analysis in all of these, and in fact now my 500 MM votes may be too high thinking about what Greg said. If we end up with max DC on one of these, could we sell it all in short order, and is there enough liquidity in that coin that its market could absorb us selling 1 billion (if that’s the DC) and still be able to hold its value within reason? What analysis do we have on that as to each?

That is the main problem, probably busd is the only one you can sell quickly 10M without changing it is peg.

For any stablecoin to USD redemption, one would need to be KYC’ed with related counterparty and own a bank account, so for Maker this is not an option.

1 Like

So in essence we’re reliant on those who are KYC’ed to bid Dai for these stablecoins should we ever have to liquidate?

Also, in an example like BUSD, who controls the “blacklist”? Do you know if it’s Binance or Paxos (or both)?

1 Like

Based on Paxos website, Paxos is both issuer and custodian of BUSD, so it’s essentially the same as PAXUSD just with Binance branding.


We are not reliant on KYC’ed parties as there are liquid markets across on-chain venues and also CEX markets. In the case of BUSD or any other stablecoin discount to USD on these markets, various entities that are KYC’ed would arb the discount between secondary and primary market.

I assume it’s Paxos as the issuer of the coin, but I didn’t come across anything specific to freeze function and blacklisting.


Polls have been closed, thanks everybody for participating.

While we found majority for the proposed plan in general and for the DC of the PAX-PSM, there is no majority for any option on the BUSD- and GUSD-PSM.

Will try to work out a way how we can bring this onchain next week nevertheless. Stay tuned.


Given the suggestion from the @Growth-Core-Unit, we’re going to delay this for at least a week such that this signal has time to resolve.

If that signal is successful, we’ll delay longer so that growth have a chance to negotiate with the issuers of GUSD, PAX and BUSD.

If that signal is unsuccessful, we’ll put the on-chain polls up for onboarding in 8 days.


Given the recent signal was successful, we’ll delay here and wait for the @Growth-Core-Unit to get back to us with the results of said negotiations.

well, the mentioned signal ended two weeks ago. some update on the progress from @Growth-Core-Unit would be cool

1 Like

@LongForWisdom @ultraschuppi
The original post was updated 2 days ago.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

Going to archive this given that we are now taking a more piecemeal approach with PSM onboarding headed by the Growth Core Unit. PSM-PAX-A and an increase to the PSM-USDC-A Fee In tin were passed in an executive vote on 2021-08-25.

I understand that the @Growth-Core-Unit continues to pursue leads on the other stablecoins which governance voted for within this signal request.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.