It is bad idea to delist a created mAsset or change its weighting parameters

After an mAsset was whitelisted and created, Mirror users have entered long or short positions based on their objectives. Unless the oracle price become unavailable for the underlying assets, it is a terrible idea to delist the asset or discriminately change or assign its weighting parameter because doing so would like changing the rules according to some preference of certain players during a game, it would results in inconsistent and unpredictable protocol, causing harm to the healthy development and adoption of the Mirror protocol.

For example, poll ID# 169 suggests to “Modify weight for mDOT to 0.01” and provides reason as “Dot can be easily traded on various defi platforms…”. This is weak or misguided argument because the same would apply to mBTC, mETH in the traded list and mSOL, mOHM in the passed list, so why would one just pick on mDOT? How would any new users of the platform would know the mDOT is treated as a lower-class asset.

I just checked Terraswap Dashboard (Terraswap Dashboard), and found out that the trading volume for the mDOT-UST trading pair for the past 24 hours was 306K, ahead of those for the mQQQ-UST, mABNB-UST, mTSLA, mGOOGL, mHOOD…

I would suggest users to think more deeply on this topic and vote “No” to against this proposal.

I do not find your argument persuasive. Your entire “game” argument makes zero sense and is not related to equity trading at all. Firstly, the entire point of a proposal is for the community to vote. So if people agree with you they will vote no. I disagree with you.

Crypto assets should have never been listed on Mirror with any weight assigned. Just because you are listed on Mirror does not mean you should be assigned MIR rewards. A pool can exist for you to long or short the asset. It does not mean you have some entitlement to rewards. I find the argument in the proposal to be fact. DOT can be traded elsewhere and the point of Mirror was to bring stocks to those who could not access it in regular markets.

You make some argument where your strategy was designed around MIR rewards. Well a strategy should not have been around the rewards but around the underlying asset. If you are talking about delta neutral then your strategy is no benefit to Mirror at all and the point of this conversation is pointless as such strategies offer no benefit and drain Mirror so I have no sympathy for that. If you are short or long you can still ride that position. You can purchase DOT anywhere so why should Mirror give you rewards for doing so? This is life and how any brokerage works. Things get delisted and moved to pink sheets all the time so acting like this is out of the ordinary is just plain incorrect. Not to mention this is a defi protocol and is exactly what voting is designed for.

mSOL and mOHM being whitelisted means nothing. They are not massets so they add nothing to your argument. mBTC and mETH? Who said they wont make a proposal for them in the future? Go ahead and make one. You act like because someone made a proposal for DOT they have some obligation to make it for other assets as well and if not are picking on DOT?

Trading volume has nothing to do with the proposal. The proposal reads the fact that it adds nothing to Mirror but drains it of rewards that are better spent on assets that people can not access because they are limited to traditional markets.

In logic this is called a logical fallacy where you are basically saying because they are not doing it to other assets they should not do it to DOT. It makes for a weak argument.

1 Like

I don’t have any strategy around the MIR rewards, what I want is a consistency and predictability in the protocol. I don’t like changing the rules during a game. Probably it is you who care about the MIR rewards so much to create a proposal to discriminate against some specific assets.

Anyone who disagrees must be the person who created the proposal? lol. I see this conversation is a waste of time.

Do not expect “predictability” in defi. That is your first major mistake.

It is not a mistake at all for the user to expect or predict the game rules will not change just because some one just propose to change the rules to fatten his/her own bags…

Hi, those who vote on delisting these mAssets are literally killing the protocol, since arbitragers will leave the system with their money of course… less money => less Luna price… bad for all.
What is the goal of this delisting/reweighting? just to take couple more % of APY in an ever falling MIR? Sounds like a nonsense to me.

BTW, do you know any other similar platform with Minting, Oracles, AMM and all those things?

1 Like

Exactly! Unfortunately, there are people just more interested in fattening MIR rewards for their own positions than the healthy development of entire Mirror/Luna ecosystem. The proposal of delisting or reweighting a specific assets would likely get more votes to pass because the fractions of people not invested in the specific asset would certainly be higher.

To your question: Synthetix.io has the more or less similar type of Assets (sBTC, sETH, sDOT…)

Now the madness is going full speed ahead. This same scumbag went ahead to create the completely fraudulent poll 177 to trying to steal MIR reward from the community pool. I tried very hard to warn that this guy is trying to tear down Mirror protocol one piece at a time. Yet few would recognize it and just keep blindly vote YES for his fraud proposals. And the Mirror team is totally silent? What a shame

1 Like

The community is the mirror team. You need to understand this is a decentralized protocol.

Knowing how to exploit the flaw in the system and the weakness of human nature may make you feel powerful for a while. Eventually the scumbag will be caught …

1 Like

Not sure what that has anything to do with what I posted. I have noticed from many of your responses you do not have a complete understanding of how defi works. Especially from your “game” references. This is a community. Not everyone will have the same view as you or me for that matter. Things will and do change. That is why we have votes.

The dev team is us. The protocol was made fully decentralized in the past few weeks. Everyone loves defi but then wants some centralized team to run to. You want change make change. Nothing stops you from doing the work instead of complaining about everyone who has a differing opinion from you.