Discussion about assets weight

It looks odd and discriminating to have some assets rewards so low. i think all crypto assets should be treated the same and have an agreed weight better than 0.01 or like the rest.

Setting rewards to nearly zero for some assets is hurting the protocol.

Polls are a bit sketchy lately and the community seems to vote yes automatically for anything will increase rewards( setting some assets to 0.01) or gain value ( burn to increase value)

People looks like fighting over rewards and we can’t simply discriminate certain assets because of that. We have 27 assets and i’m sure if i create a poll to set any masset to 0.01 it will pass since it will benefit the rest of 26 assets.

Things look chaotic and lack planning.I don’t have the technical knowledge in crypto or know how to code. I think people who create polls and make things happen should be rewarded. This will encourage people to developed.

Mirror team needs to advice and educate the community about polls like why it is good or bad. But, It is up to the community to vote.


Exactly, all mAssets should be treated equally. The polls modifying mDOT & mBTC weighting to 0.01 were created by the same scumbag who trying to steal 5% of MIR token with the fraudulent poll #177. More mAsset needed to be added and all assets needs to be treated equally so that more users can be incentivized to trade to increase the TVL of the protocol and the value of MIR.


I just checked and you are right!

1 Like

I don’t feel strongly on this issue, but one pretty good argument to lower the reward weighting for mCrypto assets (mDOT, mETH, mBTC) is that they are already accessible by anyone with access to the internet.

The main purpose of mAssets as laid out in the MIR whitepaper is to allow for people who wouldn’t otherwise have access to the asset to be able to invest. Generally, that means people outside the US and Europe who want to buy US stocks but do not have cheap and easy access though a broker like Robinhood, Schwab, IBKR, etc.

Since anyone with an internet connection can already buy/trade native BTC, DOT, and ETH, giving MIR rewards to these assets is not furthering MIRs main purpose.

mDOT, mETH, mBTC directly compete with Synthetix’s sDOT, sETH, and sBTC, respectively. There are cases where people can hedge their crypto positions with these synthetic assets for tax or other reasons. For whatever reasons, if we don’t incentivize the trading, they will take their capitals to Synthetix or somewhere else and lead to accelerated TVL decline and downward spiral for the MIR price.

mAssets of the stock equity add more real-world usage case for bringing in potential more TVL into the mirror protoocol.

Because the equity mAssets can only be minted during the hours when the equity can be traded, while the crypto mAssets can be minted anytime so they actually may play an even important role in bringing more TVL to the protocol, so they should be treated equally if not favorably.


The reason why the demand for mDOT, mETH, mBTC exists is due to their utility as forms of collateral for short farming/trading pair fees.
We can look at the trading volumes for mETH before and after bETH was ported over to terra.
Allow bETH as collateral on Mirror and you will see mETH volumes completely evaporate.
Same goes for bDOT and wBTC if it comes thru IBC>

well mBTC and the others existing also has utility in the sense that minting them can be used to short bitcoin/eth/dot without having to use centrilised exchanges. Also as far a I know so far there’s no way to get DOT and BTC onto terra so just beeing able to use them in a diffrenc ecosystem gives the mirrored versions utility.

1 Like

Like I said, I don’t really care but people were asking why there were suggestions to reduce mCrypto incentives and I was pointing out that mCryptos are different from the vision of MIR laid out in the whitepaper.

As for arguments that there is demand or uses for mCryptos, that is fine but if the demand and uses were so compelling then there would actually be less need for incentives. One of the biggest question marks for MIR longer term is how/if it will work when there aren’t emissions boosting all the returns.

And they have that same utility without rewards no?

I agree. The decision to list crypto assets at 0.01 is flat out stupid, especially now that we see it came from the same address trying to steal 5% of the community pool. We need to list out all assets, look at the weights, trading volumes, etc and start assigning weights in a more organized fashion.

1 Like

Its clear to me that without emissions, even mStocks would suffer from a lack of liquidity, not just mCryptos.
Fwiw, I would use mETH as collateral to short farm/borrow even if there were no incentives as I am interested in short/borrowing first, incentives second.
Concentrated liquidity, flexibility in collateral options (ie. using bAssets as collateral) and some form of protocol-owned or leased LP would be needed to ensure a good user experience for the lower volume pairs.

1 Like

I agree, now that you bring it up, that bAssets would be a good addition as collateral. Especially with bSol also on the horizon. I also see that meth, mdot, and mbtc have utility without or even reduced incentives specifically because it serves as a means to short the market. The issue becomes on the long side. Would people long those assets or provide liquidity more specifically without incentives? We will see as the mdot and mBtc reductions move forward. A quick look shows a drastic reduction in liquidity already for mDot so it is possible people are only chasing the rewards, which opens the thought process of how Mirror is due to function once emissions are gone? I do not have any answers just speculation at this point.

1 Like

RE long: well you can already gauge this from the liquidity provided to bETH-UST on terraswap. it is not insignificant, for sure.
RE short: also, I don’t think we are too far away from a money market that would allow users to short bETH/bDOT etc (read MARS).
All that remains is for mirror to allow bAssets as collateral.