Ohm devs cooked something called Baseline that supposedly is infinite liquidity, no liquidation leverage, and up-only.
FYI I bought tokens but it's genuinely an interesting mechanism - NFA, it might go down + I have some improvements I would make.
Here's how it works:
First of all, there are 2 distinct products: Baseline is the protocol and $YES is the first token launched on top of Baseline.
We will go over how everything works.
Baseline effectively is an automated liquidity manager for tokens.
Baseline launches tokens on V3 AMMs with single sided liquidity - effectively 'ICOing' token launches initially.
quick recap, V3 has a concept of 'ticks', which are just liquidity ranges.
As people buy/sell the token (price discovery), fees are accumulated in a clever way.
Rather than taxing buys/sells, which is the traditional way to rake fees, Baseline changes the liquidity depth between ticks on buys/sells to increase slippage.
This effectively accrues fees (in ETH) to the protocol in a cleaner way than taxing traders.
Where do those fees go? They go into something called 'floor' and 'anchor' ticks - this effectively is a price FLOOR on the token price.
As people are buying/selling the tokens on Baseline, the fees accrued are used to increase the floor tick.
This floor tick can withhold ALL sell pressure of the floating supply of the token - this is the LOWEST price the token can go.
The 'discovery' ticks are ticks that only contain the token - effectively where traders buy new tokens from.
The anchor ticks facilitate smoother trading between the floor tick and discovery ticks.
As trading happens, the protocol is constantly accruing fees in ETH. When the token price appreciates past a certain tick, a function called 'shift' is executed.
Shift rebalances the entire liquidity supply. Let's say the price of the token increased 25%, the liquidity would be rebalanced where the floor tick would move up (floor value of token increases), anchors will be reset, and token price discovery ticks would shifted up as well.
When the token price decreases past a certain anchor tick, a function called 'slide' is executed.
The floor bin will still try to move up if enough fees are accrued (or stay if not) and anchor ticks and price discovery ticks will be rebalanced in the opposite direction.
It's important to note, the floor tick can ONLY go up.
We can see the current token price relative to the floor price - right now the token price is trading ~45% premium relative to the floor. We can also see the floor slowly increasing as trading happens.
A really neat feature the floor tick offers is that you can actually have native leverage with the token.
By locking up the token (in this case $YES), those tokens are taken out of circulation and can't be sold, effectively allowing you to take ETH out of the floor tick.
This allows you to continuously leverage on your $YES tokens without any risk of liquidation. Since you borrowed from the floor bin that can never go below it's current price, your position is always solvent.
No need for oracles either.
As the floor moves up, you can re-leverage your existing position.
kind of- there is a fair value that your tokens can never go below and depending on trading activity, that floor will move up.
However, as the price of the token trades at a higher premium to the floor, it becomes riskier as traders may dump.
But on the flip side, buying the token close to floor means your downside is capped significantly.
Some suggestions I would have for the next token to launch on Baseline is to thin out liquidity in the price discovery zone.
I believe the liquidity in the price discovery ticks are too thick and price insensitive to bids.
This would be alleviated if every single user looped on leverage to clear out the ticks and send this to Valhalla, but it's not something a token should rely on.
Thinning out liquidity would allow this to be much more sensitive to buys, which is always good as price can swing upwards faster and the floor bins would mitigate some downside.
Regardless, very interesting mechanism and the new age spin on protocol owned liquidity.
Will continue to keep up with @BaselineMarkets developments and improvements!
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
During dev con, I worked with @real_philogy and @yush_g to create what we think is a true blind vickery auction, fully on-chain.
This implementation is just a proof of concept but we think it could be a powerful primitive going forward for all auctions in the future.
Before we dive in, major props to @real_philogy and @yush_g for coming up with the initial approach and mechanic. Shoot em a follow, they're working on some real cool stuff.
First, what is a blind vickery auction and why is it better than the current auctions you see on Opensea or Nouns?
The problem with current 'non-blind' auctions is that all bids are public and this causes suboptimal price discovery.
There's still some money to be made during the bear, so here's some bear market alpha.
Not sure if we'd even consider this long tail MEV but here's what @rauchp_@wawrencelu and me have been doing to earn ~$700 a day *relatively* risk free and automated (since sept 28).
$700/day ain't a lot but considering the amount of work needed (only needed 2 simple boys), pretty worth. Take what you can get, just bear market tings 🤷♂️
This number will go down over the weeks but here's a tldr of it, similar opportunities will probs pop up every now and then.
We had no business looking at NEAR but @wawrencelu suggested we take a look to see if anything cool was happening.
We found a liquidity incentive program on @tonicdex. They were having a 50k USN (NEAR's stablecoin) incentive program for market makers on the USN/USDC pair.
Just looked at the @WZRDSxyz contract and yep, they can definitely arbitrarily burn your NFT. It doesn't matter whether it's listed for sale or not, they can burn it (without paying you if it's listed).
They can also arbitrarily transfer your NFT to whoever as well.
Here's how:
Typically, when you try to transfer an NFT or a contract tries to transfer your NFT on your behalf, the NFT contract checks whether you're the owner of the token or if you gave explicit approval/permission to the contract trying to transfer your token.
This is why opensea asks you to send an approval transaction when you try to sell an NFT from a collection the first time. You're literally giving opensea permission to transfer your token to anyone if there is a sale.
I get like 5-10 DMs a day asking about how to get better at solidity (some even ask if Im taking interns lol).
While this may be rudimentary and somewhat "obvious" knowledge, I'll try to explain the concept that really helped me "get it" when I first started learning.
When you interact with Ethereum, a majority of the time you're transferring some sort of token from your own wallet to another.
It's common to think "transferring a token" is an actual action of sending something to someone. ie the token is actually getting "sent".
However, it's much more simple than that.
There isn't actually "3 tokens" in your wallet, it's just a number (your balance) that represent how many tokens you should have.
So when you're 'sending' a token, it's just a simple increment/decrement of the 2 wallet balances.
Im curious if theres any cool implications by fractionalizing NFTs into 1155s vs ERC20s - talking specifically about fractional ownership of NFTs
Most (if not all) fractionalization protocols split NFTs into fungible ERC20s - this causes slight disconnect between the two.
NFTs are typical viewed/bought on marketplaces but ERC20s are bought on AMMs
But fractionalizing via 1155s would let both the NFT and fractions be viewed/bought on the same marketplaces -> less context switching, more seamless?
Also you can make the 1155s look pretty too lmao
I dont see many ERC20 fractionalized shares driving a lot of volume on AMMs which makes me believe ppl are treating these fungible tokens almost as non-fungible shares (essentially holding the ERC20 like it's an NFT in their wallet).