An interesting idea from @TusharJain_ - to use Liquidity Provider tranches in order to address Impermanent Loss.
Two tranches in a pool:
* Junior Tranche is as today
* Senior Tranche shares only 20% of pool income, but has IL insured by the earnings from Junior Tranche.
In effect creating two classes of LPs.
Those that are after low-risk, low-reward capital markets.
Those that are after higher-risk, higher-reward.
In a hypothetical scenario, two LPs enter a pool, a Junior and a Senior.
The pool experiences no IL: Junior makes 4 times as much in earnings as Senior.
The pool experiences IL: The senior's capital is protected by as much earnings as it takes, deducted from the Junior.
Example:
If a pool has 50:50 Junior:Senior, and makes 30% APY, then assuming no IL, Juniors would make 48% APY, Seniors would make 12% APY.
If there is IL, then earnings are shifted to ensure that Senior's capital is protected.
This strategy creates no additional pressure on the emissions of the network.
The pool's bucket of earnings is split between LPs depending on the scenario.
THORChain are please to unveil the @gauntletnetwork analysis of the liquidity-sensitive fee (slip-based) model of THORChain's continuous liquidity pools.
This work was commissioned to validate some assumptions around the model and to get a neutral third-party to challenge it.
Gauntlet set a scenario where liquidity would choose between an XYK exchange (uniswap) and a CLP exchange (THORChain).
Three agents (LP, demand trader and arb trader) each with competing priorities interacted.
A "secondary market" provided the price paths.
LPs monitored both exchanges and would move their funds where the ROI is highest.
This behaviour has already been seen today between Uniswap and Sushiswap (multiple times liquidity sloshed between both)
If you hold a Bitcoin UTXO that you can spend, you sign a tx and broadcast it. Individual Bitcoin miners can choose to not to process it, but they cannot stop it being eventually processed.
Bitcoin users do not have a relationship with miners, and miners don't hold funds.
If you sign a tx spending Bitcoin into THORChain, it will get processed by miners, then witnessed by THORNodes into the state machine. Any THORNode can choose not to witness it, but they will get unavoidably slashed.
So it will eventually end up in the state machine.
* Because the team recognised early that memetic growth of the network is an important driver to gaining widespread adoption. *
Simply, because it's a meme.
/thread
Decentralised crypto money networks are held together by the people who make it.
The more they can identify with each other, share their ideas, spread their memes, the stronger the network is.
Norse mythology is as old as time itself, arguably one of the strongest memes ever
Norse Mythology likely descends from the Old Testament (Book of Genesis) containing similar ideas (even a version of Adam & Eve - Aska & Embla, with similar fates).
It's a rich brand, woven in and out of culture for thousands of years, including recent comics and movies.
If they are wrapped/pegged, the project is out-sourcing security to another protocol.
THORChain secures native assets.
2) Is the security model scalable?
If the security model is "proof of stake" but does not couple the security of vaulted assets with their value, then the protocol can become unsafe.
THORChain uses an Incentive Pendulum - which is scalable and autonomous.
3) Does the protocol use Atomic Swaps?
Atomic Swaps are a deal-breaker for incentivised liquidity pools, since Atomic Swaps cannot be pooled or incentivised, and is vulnerable to the "American Call Option"