or bad idea, should borrowing on veFXS be prioritized over other development efforts?
I think there are many other opportunities with higher ROI vs borrowing against veFXS.
Yeah this is most important consideration
Its not a moral standpoint, its the danger it causes to the protocol what concerns me.
There’s about $360M of value in locked FXS. Pick whatever collateral radio you’re comfortable with and extrapolate some numbers. Let’s say people take loans of about 25%, that’s $80M more FRAX in circulation, basically increasing the market cap by about 12%. Let’s assume the average interest rate on that is 4%, then you’re looking at $3.2M of profit just on interest alone, not accounting for liquidation fees. Then start thinking about the additional incentives of even more people locking up FXS, now knowing that they’re not stuck in an illiquid position and can get out if they really need to. That would definitely entice some, lowering the circulating supply and providing positive price impact.
Once again, do you have any concerns of Fraxlend blowing up? Because this is literally the same system I’m describing.
I have not looked into fraxlend yet because Im not a lender. Lending markets are common so that is whatever but the locked part of veFXS seems to be even riskier.
Just to reiterate, this is all based on the premise of veFXS having a rage quit function that would allow for the unlocking of FXS at a penalty, and then liquidating that position.
25% seems way high. To me, this seems more like a tool that a 3rd party can build. Stake with them, get xvefxs which you can borrow against. Many many other opportunities for the core team to prioritize allowing partners to come in with creative solutions for items like this
But hey, it won’t be the first time someone has disagreed with me on properties g a roadmap
Doesn’t work like this
Обсуждают сегодня