Mirror V3 - Area Of Focus
Just wanted to get a thread going to start brainstorming some of the fundamental issues with Mirror V2 and where the focus for V3 should be spent. Discussion and feedback is encouraged.
- Unattractive spreads especially on more volatile assets .
- Not enough incentive to Arb mAssets
- Liquidity pools using antiquated AMM model that results in higher spreads
- Astroport addresses this using a concentrated liquidity model
- Need to determine optimal liquidity in Astroport pools to avoid saturation of mAssets and better understand what our capacity is for new markets . More efficient AMM pools means that liquidity requirements are lower across the board and in some cases lower liquidity will result in high swap fee rewards thus improving overall sustainability.
- Leveraged liquidity is not possible in current design
- Currently incentives dynamically incentivize “long” liquidity , and taking short positions based on mAsset spreads . As MIR token will cease to be distributed after 4 years this is not sustainable.
- Enable leveraged short and leveraged long liquidity where users can gain leveraged exposure to swap fees.
- Delta neutral is milking rewards from the Mirror ecosystem and not generating value for the Mirror ecosystem
- Many projects have plans that rely on delta neutral strategies .
- We can enable delta neutral strategies but need to ensure that these strategies bring value to mirror.
Mirror token value capture and use case and governance
- Investigate better governance model for mirror. Consider iceCream model or potentially the xSushi model.
User loyalty and acquisition
- Investigate regions where mirror has had significant adoption
- Consider strategic assets that would be attractive to new users(commodities, assets in hard to access markets)
- Develop strategic partnerships to target new users. (kash.io, valkyrie,etc)
Increase User activity
- Enable leverage trading through external protocols (Levana)
- Enabled managed funds built on mirror (Spar)
A quick one.
I have noticed that mirror has created the base code to start a project with staking and lp there out of the box. I would expect that all the projects which are forking compensate mirror with an airdrop.
This can be just sent to the community address. Via goverance we will decide what to do. Selling to buy mir? airdrop to stakers (based on time staking and lockup xmir …)
Example: starterra doesn’t share code yet but looks a mirror fork (with almost nothing built on top)
nexus: shares code. I need to check it.
VLK: as nexus
Note: the license on mirror allows to take the code like this. I would change the license: obligation of open source. Desired: 1% of supply to mirror community address
proposal two (harder but not so much): start a project I have in mind with 20% of the supply to mirror stakers, 20% to mirror community, 2% to mirror DEV, 8% to DEV of the project itself (1% to myself hahaha).
the project is a full fork. lps are token created out of the box if gov vote for them. the single token is a gov token of a specified NFT project (eligible to partecipate only if DAO or potential DAO).
single lp staking of token X are the voting power for that project.
ethereum, solana, whatever selected projects can partecipate (criteria explained after if you like the idea) and get airdropped of their token based on ownership of the original NFT.
move other chains NFT users to terra
promote terra to the governance area of all serious NFT (full onchain and DAO in a reasonable time)
Give the proper value to mirror codebase and DEVs
enhance holding mirror value
proposal 3. Copy of my V3 response to DO
use community fund to ensure a minimal liquidity to a set of strategic and voted pools.
Eventually allocate some of the ozone UST from luna burning to ‘feed’ the ust part of the pair.
Accrued mir and fees go to the community (UST are from luna? it goes to luna cause it is fair like that)
Community address can become a kind of treasure (multisig of it would be appreciated: as apollo safe. Can make sense to reuse their code when shared: compensating them accordingly).
community can allocate some funds in astroport, an lp MIR UST and accrue the astro which will be distributed. Governance will decide how to use them.
Im not going to engage in a discussion as it relates to forking mirror or taxing forks of mirror.
I think using community funds for liquidity is completely unnecessary and would be a horrible use of the community spend funds.
I dont think liquidity is a problem once we have concentrated liquidity pools.
why? a % of the yield of the pool will stay in community and liquidity will be ensured. I fear that pools can become illiquid once inflation decrease (soon)
Also because you are not able to do it
Thats why we need to focus on making the pools sustainable .Allowing leveraged exposure to swap fees , etc.
True. i didnt deny your statements (any). I also believe the liquidity will come from other lego pieces.
I dont think mirror needs to implement directly the leveraged assets, third parties do it and they will need more m-asset supply. This component of the demand will come from levana nebula and hopefully spar (dhedge which is a similar idea was not hyper successfull but ethereum gas and the fact that synthetic is inferior to mirror, imho, played a role).
I wanted just to suggest another possible component for the liquidity. It can come from comm fund: u dont have to think that we throw away the funds. Funds are just collateralized: e.g. put mir on mars get a loan and add the amount to a pair. It has NOT to be done now: just a dimension we need to consider to allow arbitrageurs to do better their job in a liquid lp and people to trade with no slippage. This means a little active management. How can be done? Only if there is a sc triggerable by gov votation (we dont have a so general and mirror MUST be a dao: makes sense to have? We code it general). The multisig i described (apollo like)is more a security for a phase in which you dont have yet a real dao: i thought about it. It is a mistake. Stupid auggestion from me.
About forking. You misunderstood (i think). Forking means only discuss an idea for a fully independent project which reuses all unique mirror features ( a real DAO with smart contract triggered new lp which requires only anon fully parametrized actions) with a compensation via airdrop to mirror holders / community fund. I will create an entry to present it better (free to tell me is a piece of shit ) it will be an example for all the projects who has taken code without feeling the need of an airdrop: i believe was unfair.
Delta trade. With mir rewards going down (tokenomics is clear) delta trade will gradually shift from farming mir to put lp on astroport for double farming, then farm more astro, then get mainly lp fees and no more farming. I think now it gives lp liquidity: it is not bad.
Mir is not exploding but u double it each year by active governance (wich mean x4 -x8 if the coin takes off a bit).
Xmir! Super idea. Especially if boosts the pool: will force farm projects to hold and stake forever strongly reducing selling pressure. A boost come to the expense of non boosters as inflation stays constant so: everybody will need to commit long or forget farming… We have to see if farm projects can have the right to vote. I think they should only if they are a dao and yheir vote is the result of an internal votation ( this problem already existed in many ethereum daos and should be considered ).
Astroport. Concentrated liquidity depends from pool type. With high volatility is not bad to take the slippage and allow trades. I expect astro to document it well buy it is a uni v3 feature. Just have a look there ( i am still in v2 uni: liquid pairs where big volatility is the main driver. I need to have a look if i fell asleep in the crv eth )
what about starting to consider the proposal of a kind of xMir locked long with more voting power and value capture? Developers should also be rewarded…
P.s. I refer to the section in Papi first post: Mirror token value capture and use case and governance
Yeah, you might want to reconsider CREAM. 4th time hacked… You want to improve Mirror ??? Start with the basics: make it available on phone as an app ! Imagine everyone on Robinhood or Revolut only trading from their desktop.What you have so far is some phony Mirror app on Google play probably meant to steal your seedphrase.
What makes Mirror unique, is it can bring every asset class to everyone in the world. Since US stocks are the major asset class on Mirror, our target user should not be US citizens, because they are already accessible to US stocks. Our target user should be those non-US citizens, those who cannot trade US stocks. I suggest the team, or encourage the community, to build more frontend web app in different languages, to satisfied the demand for those who benefited from Mirror the most.
I am doing arb on mAssets and I have couple ideas that could improve the capital efficiency:
Cross-collateral (like in Binance):
In the current protocol version, you may open several borrowed positions, each of them requiring some collateral. When price of mAssets fluctuates, you may find yourself with some positions being at risk of liquidation while others are overcollaterized. Better would be to use one shared collateral pool per wallet composed of multiple tokens. Margin ratio may be computed quite easily as weighted average based on the minimum collateral ratios of corresponding mAssets.
Introduce the leveraged assets (or even CFDs) and allow users borrowing/minting them, or course. This may multiply the profit, thus making the 1.5% borrowing price not that high. This will also drastically reduce the capital requirements to start arbitraging.
Adjust the minting/borrowing model
Stock mAssets are not that volatile, they are not moving fast enough. Which makes it possible to arb only in one direction: i.e. when premium is increasing. 1.5% for borrowing is way too high to have any incentive of reducing the premium, since it is basically added to a already high spread. But be sure that mAssets are well arbitraged, since overall premiums seems to remain high
We could probably reduce the price of borrowing/minting, for example, to make it dependent on the volume (e.g. 1.5% for small amounts, 1% for medium amounts, 0.5% for big amounts, etc).
Reducing the spread will obviously bring much more incentive. But I can’t say anything on that.
Lastly. I remarked that people are much worried that adding new mAssets will blur their APYs, so I can suggest firstly adding a ton of mAssets like stocks from all sectors, sector ETFs, most countries indices, commodities, REITs, some more exotic markets, etc. Only this can attract traders having a hard access to those markets. But we can leave the MIR reward weight for all these mAssets at about 0 and then let people decide on where to distribute the rewards. E.g. to pay to the most LPed assets by volume, or by time, or even keep adjusting the reward weight manually (as of today).
Thanks for reading
It’s already available as a phone app.
Can we bring back the line chart showing TVL that was in Version 1?
More line charts all around would look nicer I think.
The issue why they can not do that is that relies on centralized information.In the shift to decentralized it had to go with the minimum and remove the centralized information.
Certainly not. There used to be a spam version on Google Play, it’s bred scrapped, thank goodness
Can you clarify what “leveraged liquidity” is and how it will increase the swap fee rewards? Does this basically just entail borrowing money to increase position size (similar to Alpaca Finance)? If so, would this really increase the LP swap fee rewards or simply make the LPs larger? If seems like in aggregate, the only way to increase the swap fees is to increase trade volume relative to the LP liquidity.
After Poll 177 (and some others), I would say securing the protocol from bad actors trying to undermine it should be a very high priority. Mirror almost took a big hit and these bad actors exploit voter ignorance and greed to damage Mirror, while claiming to do good.