There's @SablierHQ and there's @Superfluid_HQ , but is there anyone else out there creating a product for tokenizing ERC20 vesting-schedule as a service? If you are working on it definitely let me know.
There's certainly a risk of if various classes of ERC20 vesting from pre-seed to Series-A are tradeable NFTs in market at the same time, what's going to happen to circulating spot ERC20 -- so adoption by projects could be an issue.
But such tokenization also seems inevitable?
As a follow-on point, I could see additional characteristics of the investment certificate also being non-transferrable over a period of time to mitigate such issue.
Yes of course I missed $sushi... that could be a functionality baked into miso.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Personally I'm against this proposal. The additional 60 $RULER is added to the emission schedule alongside allowing the $RULER team + advisors (myself included) to stake $RULER for xRULER -- basically to help non-team xRuler stakers still get their emission.
Personally I don't see the need for additional 20 bps emission / month that adds to team's allocation given such additional emission doesn't really accrue value to the protocol (vs. LP liquidity or lending). Happy to debate here:
I do know Sifu as our strategic advisor who owns ~$1.5 mm USD worth of $RULER (who adds a ton of value!) would love to stake his tokens into xRuler. Perhaps we can have that occur eventually when the protocol actually generates fees. Inflation is precious today.
0 – In the past, I have expressed my anticipation on elegant solutions re: non-callable lending – and expect many teams to throw their hats into the ring. @RulerProtocol is what I believe to the 1st valid attempt to take a crack at it (if you know others, dm me! @nftfi maybe?)
1 – The scope of the problem re: “why do we need non-callable lending” is clear – many assets don’t have continuous prices (i.e. trade by appointment, OTC, etc) and can’t really have oracles. Even for less liquid ERC20s, the quality of oracle starts becoming questionable.
2- With current price-centric liquidation model (i.e. loan is called by smart-contract lender when price of collateral dips below X), lend / borrow for long-tail, non-continuous price assets simply doesn’t work (also part of reason why lending protocols pick collateral carefully)
0 – Alpha police would lynch me, but for stables farms, there’s $FLOAT’s ~1.5% whitelisted daily, the boosted 20-50% APY in CRV / Dodo, the stonk:UST pool of ~200% via $MIR, the ~100% SD Curve eurs in $SDT, one can also degen $Cover no-claim for 50-100%. Here’s a more degen one…
1 – A $TRU competitor had entered – I haven’t heard from Coinflex for a while but they just came out with notes.finance as its #DeFi attempt. ~10k% APY on unsecured lending to prop desks on a mere $25-30 mm $FLEX FDV to start (funded via $FLEX inflation).
2 – The 2 products they have are actually rather neat – one is a yield-generating USD (flexUSD) where the interest comes from basis trade on corn (perp funding fee / long spot short futures), which is paid out onchain via rebase every 8 hours.
0 - The coverage on the DODOnomics is over-due. So here it is. The TVL is low (and intentionally so optimized for volume going through platform). As the marathon continues into multi-platform (BSC, DOT, etc) and multi-vertical, I continue to have high hopes for the $DODO team.
1 – Staking DODO into vDODO = membership right (would imagine a secondary market would develop) similar to xSushi and BNB – earns fees + inflation, gets fee discounts, gets IDO allocations (could happen to xSushi / Miso too?), and votes.
2 – Here’s some additional neat token-economics - one is mint / stake via shared link gets referral rewards on inflation. Second is exiting vDODO into liquid DODO carries a 5-15% fee – and the more people stake vDoDo, the lower the exit fee…
1- I may have spoken about this before, but I think it’s rather likely existing #DeFi protocols would vertically and horizontally expand into financial conglomerates. What’s 1 module of financial primitives would expand to a full suite of services
2- …for the main reason being (a) you spent the CAC for customer & TVL, might as well monetize, (b) devs need new things to put minds on + take on more cool projects, (c) token-holders demand more, and (d) meaningful synergy across primitives.
3 – for #DeFi on ETH. The barrier of entry is starting to form – there’s L2 to think about, there’s “should I be on DOT / have my own chain”, but there’s also “is my team stacked enough to compete against XYZ while XYZ broadens the scope.”
Good work by @Lucas; here's my latest visual. Think Sushi is >2x undervalued vs. $UNI. $UNI and $AAVE seem to be catching inst. bids, $UNI also trades like pot'l v3 release w/ inside info. FWIW I expect gap to close w/ catalyst w/ $SUSHI on Bentobox, Mirin, & other good stuff 👀
Sushi's fully diluted mkt cap could use work -- it's 250 mm vs. what I pulled. so more like 1.8 Bn USD. This puts UNI's diluted 4-5x more than Sushi. The point still stands. One could argue $UNI should have a premium given being #1, pending catalyst, and broadest reach today
Next pts of differentiation around (a) more pairs onboarding + being the go-to for best degen bets, (b) linking closer to exchanges, (c) L2 adoption when makes-sense, (d) broadening liquidity product set when makes-sense, and (e) cross-chain + CeDeFi stuff when necessary.