(1) - not that strong measure comparing to the inclusion of CVP in the index
(2) - these fees are charged anyway
(3), (4) - I am afraid that all the stuff related to govn function of CVP is rather valuable for a limited number of investors atm. (I personally value it a lot)
At the same time don’t see a way to include CVP in ASSY index due to the reasons I described above
=> I believe in this situation the best way will be to amend the proportion of how the returns from strategies are split among the ASSY index investors: ASSY+CVP holders receive 3/5-3/4, ASSY only investors receive 1/4-2/5 (also described above)
what are the liquidity implications if the index is holding staked tokens vs. the underlying? will this impede the ability for people to trade in size?
thanks @Sergey. and if that’s the case then what’s the actual point of the index holding the staked token vs. the underlying?
basically, if someone wants to supply $500,000 in ETH, as an arbitrary example, and that needs to be swapped for the staked version of a token, has anyone looked into whether there’s enough liquidity for these assets so ASSY can be minted or redeemed without incurring significant slippage.
for example to allow those who stake the ASSY components to put them into the index seamlessly and as a by-product create the liquid market for staked tokens
Yes, but you are moving all the responsibility & costs onto the user. If I already went through the trouble of staking all the assets, why would I then mint ASSY?
Wouldn’t you say that we need a liquid market for staked tokens first, otherwise this is just not going to scale?
SNX strategies have great impact on raw ASSY’s APY.
Depends on strategy it’s from 7% and up to 14.6%. Huge difference.
Low risk & passive - 7.11% APY
Low-Risk and slightly active and Mid-Risk and slightly active alternative has no big difference in terms of raw APY: 13.3% vs 14.6% in whole composition. But it’s important to remind of escrow lock for SNX staking rewards. 1 year.
You can stake them for that period and mint more sUSD, but is it really ok for ASSY holders?
My humble opinion - Low risk & passive is the most valid option for index, because of fast value deliver.
SNX escrowed rewards have too much pressure on final raw APY for ASSY + price action risks for end user + risk to lose 650% collateral rate.
And if we exclude escrowed rewards - Low risk & passive bit 'em all.
Btw I love @Lemiscate’s idea about CRV, but I think it should be another index and strategy.
LM
I think same as YEIT’s is fair:
Why balancer 80/20 - perfect explanation from @YanDelphi:
xTokens is a no brainer, guess we are all for this
The fact this index will be a concentrated bet makes it inherently different then PIPT and YETI
It’ll be interesting to see how NOT having CVP included will affect TVL captured, prob positively
@Sergey 's idea of ASSY holders w/ CVP on their balances to receive revenue streams from strategies is an interesting option. Users supporting the meta-governance protocol will reap the benefits further benefits
I dont think the method of entering ASSY is a deal breaker - probably it ll be even easier to enter with underlying assets (e.g put YFI in ASSY and ASSY will buy the set of assets for your YFI and put them into strategies) - looks like this way will be the most effective in terms of the fee size
the only good alternative is when you converted all the assets into xTokens yourself and put them into ASSY in the right proportion, but this way doesn’t look like “seamless entry”
Anyway, what we can do here is just lay out all possible options and see how to optimize the fees (entry, conversion to xTokens etc.), for the users, this is pretty straightforward task, don’t see any issues here
absolutely. WACC in crypto is roughly estimated at 40% even for the core currencies. For emerging projects (SNX is an emerging one comparing to BTC and ETH), WACC should be higher
Thus in 12 months 14% adj by the time value of money will be not more than 7% anyway:)
I am questioning 2 fundamental things about this proposal:
the demand side from investors - what makes you think that there will be damand to invest in those 4 particular assets … I could kind of see the rationale for PIPT and YETI but ASSY’s narrative doesn’t make sense to me at all…at the very least you will have some cannibalization from YETI…
you say that YFI, AAVE, SNX, SUSHI are particularly highly correlated. Can you provide any underlying data/analysis? Also we are talking about assets with sub 6 months of data so any correlations can be taken with a pinch of salt
It feels to me we need to balance the potential increase of TVL from adding new indices VS the increase in free floating CVP (aka inflation) that comes with each index addition…if we end up introducing something that brings $1-2m of TVL but puts 450k new CVP into the market per month (like YETI does) then not sure it is worth it for the overall ecosystem…
re the #2 - agree, the numbers should be provided for each proposal.
e.g correlations and the calcs of initial weights for ASSY
re 6m - you are right, but this is an external risk we have no control of. and all the potential competitors are in the same situation.
ASSY is great in terms of adding TVL imo. re the rewards I am strongly FOR staying with initially proposed rewards schedule (i.e. to decrease the rewards each month)
I wouldn’t count on it. In fact this index alone could bring in more TVL than PIPT and YETI combined.
Think about it : right now, CVP is positioned itself as a metaplay that only few can understand (you guies have minds). However it is out of reach for the many, because is it most definitely brainy and not sexy.
With ASSY, CVP gains the opportunity to benefit from much needed exposure and attract new crowd to the protocol. I agree the proposal needs to be fine tuned to favor CVP hodlers yet it is easy to see there is no big barrier to making it a reality.
No one ever went to the next level without trying something new : ASSY is dare experiment that can undeniably sparkle Powerpool environment, which is under your control anyway.
Now I don’t realize the opportunity cost or what alternative you guies would favor, but moving forward with ASSY should reflect pretty well on the project : it refines its meta and brings in another layer of awareness for growth.
Hello I’m a noob to Defi and PowerPool so excuse the naive question: When it comes to the #2, AAVE staking, let’s say someone has 100 AAVE to stake, does that mean they would have to purchase 100 ASSY to be able to stake the 100 AAVE?
disclaimer: yes I have never actually staked multiple tokens together, so I just don’t get how it works…
I see. Thank you for your response. Still a tad bit confused in the sense of the ASSY protocol itself, bear with me.
I have my 100 AAVE, I put it into the protocol and it turns to 100 StkAAVE, which then begins to farm or harvest, (I don’t know the difference haha) AAVE at whatever the APY % is set at. Is this the right thinking?
But don’t I need to have purchased some ASSY to be able to do this? To participate in the harvesting of AAVE? Or just having the AAVE will be enough?