I personally would like to see TVL stay modest for

Question

I personally would like to see TVL stay modest for

the time being as we grow, but I object to the notion that "zero TVL is the ideal". Even if Loong was simplifying, and even if we assume that an easy pool of liquidity exists so that users only need to hold ren-assets momentarily as they bridge, this still seems misguided. There is a demand to be able to hold BTC on other chains. We only extract fees from volume across the bridge, yes, but if the market favors ren assets why on earth would we *discourage* that?

#cryptocurrency #english #ren

0

17.09.2021

8 ответов

50 просмотров

R M Автор вопроса

there's almost 10 billion in WBTC marketcap right now that has a centralized counterparty risk. If renBTC is poised to take a portion of that, under the logic of "renBTC is WBTC but better", I think that's a very strong marketing position. We should move conservatively and safely but we'd be daft to aim for 0 (or minimal) TVL, in my opinion.

0

17.09.2021

R M Автор вопроса

higher TVL —> larger market share —> more brand awareness —> more volume

0

17.09.2021

R M Автор вопроса

I focus on BTC not only because it's the primary asset right now, but also because it's an example of an asset stranded on a native chain that has no defi. There are people who see tokenized BTC as being "BTC but better", for the purposes of long term holding. Right now they are content to use WBTC. In the future there are as I see it, three options: 1) ecosystem use WBTC forever, 2) ecosystem switches using renBTC in place of WBTC, or 3) uses some other decentralized wrapped BTC

0

18.09.2021

R M Автор вопроса

1 is plausible but kinda depressing, and 3 feels like a missed opportunity

0

18.09.2021

R M Автор вопроса

maybe I lack imagination regarding how the pieces will fit together, maybe REN will find a lucrative niche being a 0 TVL bridge doing zillions in volume, I'd be happy with that. I'm only speaking up because I don't want caution to breed complacency if there is an opportunity for lots of REN-assets to be minted and then sit at rest. In AMMs, as collateral, as DAO treasuries, etc. Theres a demand for assets at rest, including assets off their home chain, and if these are going to exist why not aspire for them to be REN-assets?

0

18.09.2021

farmer john

all of that can still happen

0

18.09.2021

David 🥂 Wolf

Should 0 TVL means 0 liquidity as well? if no liquidity what the use case for renBTC?

0

18.09.2021

farmer john · Accepted Answer

I think we just need to think broader and longer. CURRENTLY: Ren is about renBTC CURRENTLY: WBTC and other wrapped BTC is good enough for the market, and that is seen by TVL CURRENTLY: Defi protocols broadcast use by TVL, because it was merely a novelty only one year ago. Some sites already show use by fee calculations because it shows what people are paying to use. FUTURE: Ren has nothing to do with renBTC volume and will be predominantly many other assets, including stablecoins. CONCLUSION: Volume is more important.

209 похожих чатов

I personally would like to see TVL stay modest for

8 ответов

Похожие вопросы