I’d like to kick off a discussion about adding DLLR to our aggregator.
We’ve nearly finished work on unpausing staking and bitocracy, so we should be able to hold some important votes soon. One potential vote could be on adding DLLR to the aggregator.
I believe this addition could improve inflows to the aggregator by enabling direct swapping of centralized stablecoins to Bitcoin-backed stablecoins.
There are other benefits as well. DLLR provides us with a chance to earn on it. We could lend it out on Sovryn and earn yield, which could be used to reward our stakers.
We could also use it to obtain BTC for XUSD insurance fund (an idea from the beginning of BabelFish and XUSD) - which would make XUSD overcollateralized and more robust.
Lending out on Sovryn is the safest solution at the moment, as it would stay within the ecosystem and be easy to manage.
Additionally, DLLR could be used for the Zeros stability pool, as it is aimed to reward those who participate in this pool too. This would provide another opportunity to earn yield. Of course ZUSD could be used for the same purpose, but there are no other use cases for it.
This leads to another question - do we need or want to have other Bitcoin-backed stablecoins in the aggregator? Currently, we have ZUSD and DoC.
I am very interested in this proposal participating in the stability pool is an interesting idea, specially considering Sovryn is planning to further incentivize it with SOV.
Given the close relation of BabelFish and Sovryn, this would seems like a natural progression.
I might go even further. Since DLLR is zUSD and DoC, why not entirely replacing them with DLLR? That way liquidity is less fractionalized and easier to manage, and that would be in line with Sovryn’s objective to make DLLR the standard.
This might be inconvenient for those who go into Babelfish with DOC and want to exit in DOC in particular, no?
It could be helpful in defragmenting liquidity however, and maybe on a broader level in the users’ best interest, so long as they generally want DLLR to be the standard btc-backed stablecoin.
The Babelfish aggregator should explore ways to expand the project and secure its future not only by strengthening its position in the market, but also by taking a leading role through stimulating the influx of new funds into the project and implementing effective marketing strategies. Otherwise, the project may simply fade away against emerging competitors.
I consider this proposal will certainly help Babelfish as well as Sovryn protocols because DLLR incentivizes investors paying in BTC when participating bringing liquidity.
And DLLR is more likely to have a huge impact for the time SOVRYN has been steady and in continuous growth and innovation.
I would love to here some more critical voices here too.
Yes - I see this as a drawback for the DoC users too. They would need to go to DLLR and then swap it for XUSD to go to fiat backed stablecoins. Although we could simplyfy UX by enabling swaps from DLLR via XUSD to fiat stablecoins in one go.
I believe that it is urgent to not only deploy staking, but also a platform for hosting integrated NFTs (which can be integrated from other platforms) and, as in the “prediction (beta)” section on Cake. We need to urgently increase activity on the project and drive people in.
We need urgent actions that will contribute to the implementation and recognition of the project!! Otherwise, we will forever be stuck at the bottom of the CoinMarketCap list!
Maybe I didn’t understood it properly. I’m not sure why BabelFish should be involved in this. Our primary focus is on stablecoins, not NFTs. Pursuing this idea would require significant resources and distract us from our current goals. While the idea has potential, I don’t think it aligns with our core objectives. It’s important to remain focused on what we’re building and what we hope to achieve.
I am inclined to agree with you here, Hyde.
NFTs will certainly become more and more important over time, but I do think that Babelfish should focus on its core mission of being a stablecoin aggregator.
Please tell me if I am completely off target, but isn’t it possible to integrate other DEXs in BF 's interface and leverage their liquidity, while focusing on cross-chain? Focusing BF’s liquidity into very select coins would deepen its pools. (Maybe significantly?).
An extension of what you suggest here, I think:
For example, for a DOC - DAI swap, BF would use Sovryn to facilitate DoC → XUSD then use its own liquidity for the swap XUSD → USDT – assuming USDT is one asset BF decided to hold in it’s vaults – and then use Uniswap (for eg.) for USDT-DAI (if DAI has been removed from BF pools).
Is it possible to have these transactions signed all at once?
If yes, wouldn’t we end up with a more efficient system and deeper pools if BabelFish Vaults held few different assets per chain and outsourced liquidity to “speak” other stables?
The only things users care about are liquidity, fees and speed (the last two of which might be hampered at the benefit of the first one). I see other cross chain protocols doing that (like th**chain), and the user experience is not worst (to the contrary).
Sorry for late reply. I’ll try to be more consistent.
It may be technically feasible to integrate other DEXs in BabelFish’s interface, but I have concerns about slippage and cost efficiency. Maybe at wholesale level and arbitrage opportunites for us. But this presents some additional risks, that would need to be taken into consideration.
As mentioned in the RDOC thread, Multichain integration could provide a better solution and improve user experience. This is because it would give us greater exposure to other markets and blockchains, and potentially allow for deeper liquidity pools and more efficient swaps.
participating in the stability pool is an interesting idea, specially considering Sovryn is planning to further incentivize it with SOV.