Yeah but basically this is yet another collateral type that will require liquidators and DAI to support. In the case of the ETH-DAI pair - interestingly the liquidator automatically gets DAI and only needs to sell ETH. In the case of the ETH-BAT pair a liquidator needs to deal with 2x liquidation strings after the tx to uniswap to cycle DAI… It adds to the overall network load footprint by 2x potentially. Where as the ETH-DAI pair doesn’t.
Also again. what is the total $$ value of liquidity one could even hope to command here. How much DAI (at what a lower LR?) does one think will be minted. Right now this pair commands $6M in total liquidity. Even if we get 1/2 of that it is $3M at LR of 150% that is what 2M minted (MAX) in reality to stay away from Liquidation we’d want to see 300% - so this would be $1M.
Everyone here seems so hot to just start adding tons of small cap collateral types - that virtually are all correlated. For what kind of return. even at a SF of 5% this is 50K DAI/year to support the whole system with collateral vault, liquidation, system governance activity.
While I have grave reservations about growing this system before we actually work out the issues in the existing one. I still want concpetually to be able to grow this system when we are ready.
Literally would need 1000 different collateral types at $1M DAI each to get to $1B. This conceptually looks like a complete nightmare vs. finding ONE single collateral type that can grow us to $1B.
Frankly we burned 200K of ETH through liquidations - this is $20M( at $100ETH) that could mint at 300% 6M of DAI. Fixing this problem so instead of $20M we liquidate $2M and maybe make a higher SF, and make people feel better about the stability and robustness of this system FAR more rewarding than adding 6 collateral types that mint $6M of DAI and making the system less robust and stable.
If we are really going to talk about collateral types why don’t we start talking about centralized costody and whether the community is ready for some of these or not. BTC is still highly correlated to ETH but it does have a cap that is attractive. PAX or some of the gold related tokens also interesing, Even the real-estate tokens are interesting.
While I think uniswap is interesting - going beyond ETH-DAI seems pointless. MKR/ETH seems hazardous - but has some appeal because liquidating MKR may finally create at least some idea of a MKR liquidation market through the UNI-V1 MKR/ETH pair. Maker could also use some of the surplus DAI as a kind of fund to purchase MKR/ETH at liquidation auction prices for burn - creating a more effective burn market and potentially a small liquidity backstop to the Uniswap MKR/ETH auction pair.
My point. Lets talk about best approach to adding a few key collateral types, but focus on ones that could add forms of stability and real value (via depositable cap + DAI growth + SF) to the system not a piecemeal bit approach to growing the system. $1M at a time.
I want to hear ideas about whether we can finally take on the 100B gorilla in the room BTC honestly.
Everything else feels like chump change. And I really don’t want to burn our $20B ETH market participants either like I feel like we have been doing lately with this laise faire approach to how our key users (ETH owners) got hammered borrowing in Maker recently. If we fix this for them - the rest will come naturally and easily. Maker alone could exist on $1-2B ETH deposits and perhaps 10-30M DAI SF revenue a year.