FRAX is following a different path; LUNA has backers that have helped it scale, along with Anchor. A better organic path imo is the one Frax is taking, which is to partner with as many real builders in the space as possible. I personally think Fraxlend and Ondo's Frax-as-a-service could really give Frax a huge edge. Imagine you're starting a protocol and you can use your native token as collateral to borrow a bunch of FRAX, which you then use as your base pair in LPs. You're not spewing farming emissions, you're collecting LP fees, and you're partnered with a native cryptostable.
stablecoin liquidity as a service, borrowing against native tokens, expanding to establish the base-pair-for-all position imo may not be the edge of FRAX because FEI is also doing it. The FPI could be.
They're doing this through Ondo as well, agreed. Frax can expand much more rapidly than Fei via the AMOs, I believe. You need DAI to mint FEI, which constricts them.
neither do I know the whole picture of FEI. I should have done a comparison on the captital efficiency or decentralisation ratio between FRAX and FEI, cuz they are on par in terms of enabling the services you mentioned. I enjoyed this ethdenver talk by FEI https://youtu.be/1ElYkwKNTWc and I think they are doing sth cool towards democratising stablecoin issuing, and that makes me think FRAX and FEI are complementary to each other for the defi world.
they're entirely built on DAI it seems
users mint FEI with DAI but they have the arguably biggest ETH treasury in their PCV, and FEI is over collateralised at more than 200%
I need to read more about it I guess. not sure what the point of 200% overcollateralization would be, unless this was just a nuance, and not part of the design.
its backed mostly by decentralized assets https://app.fei.money/
LUNA & UST heavily funded by CenFi VCs, I would be rather in real CenFi or the most decentralized like $FRAX, easy for me.
Обсуждают сегодня