New Mirror mAssets: do we have a plan?

Hey all. Newish to the Terra ecosystem but I’m really getting invested in Mirror Finance.
Looking through the assets already trading on Mirror, I see that the community has already opted to list big tech and several useful ETPs to give users exposure to different commodities/funds/ETNs. This is smart - we cannot list the whole world of stocks, and there is a real cost to spreading liquidity and volume across different pairs, so as we grow we can add practical stocks and ETPs that broaden the types of exposure Mirror users globally can get access to.

I’m concerned with many of the proposals here to add either hype retail pump and dump stocks like NAKD, SNDL; but also every stock that is related to or even utters the word “bitcoin”. Listing stocks that only trade on hype (GME and AMC are included to an extent; AMC more so) runs the risk of having dead-weight assets on Mirror that eventually sit dormant with low volume and liquidity. We risk also encouraging users to put their money in assets that over the long run aren’t very likely to retain their value. No investment is without risk, and it’s totally against the spirit of this community to qualify what people can invest in, but I question if we should really be entertaining the listing of meme stocks when Mirror lacks hundreds of quality stocks. Passive ETFs (XLE, XLF, XSD, emerging markets ETFs, etc) and megacaps in the Dow 30 (DIS, HD, V, etc) will make quality mAssets that attract and promote stability in the ecosystem.

So, do we have a plan? There are many proposals up for vote that don’t even have a community forum post to discuss them. How do we feel about creating something like a tentative roadmap for when and in what order new mAssets should be put up to a vote? Thank you.

1 Like

You are right! We need more engagement in the project from the people holding mirror.

We need to do something about Mirror Governance!!! It’s the most important aspect of this project.
People need to participate in voting and build a stronger community.

I think a solution is to bring more traders and real users to use the project. They need to be incetivized by trading stocks and not rewards.


When people are voting for a future listing, why the parameters are not already integrated ?? Why people need to vote twice for a stock to be listed?

1 Like

Hi, yes you have good ideas … I believe we are all waiting for the Mirror V2 improvements.

There are many aspects that need to be changed. Participation in government activity is very low. The number of people depositing Mir in governance is increasing, but the number of voters does not seem to increase as well. This makes it even more difficult to push through new proposals. There are too many, probably unconscious, free riders, who do not realize that despite Mirror protocol is a project with incredible potential, blockchain is a new revolution in constant motion and that competition does not wait for tomorrow.

This is a “new” tweet from CZ …Introducing tradable stock tokens on #Binance ! Trade digital tokens that represent fully backed shares of equity stock. First stock token listing: @Tesla Inc. $TSLA

I believe that as you mention, there should be a list of proposed new assets, to discuss them, pros and cons, and to help create a stronger and thriving community.

I think also it is not fair that one person takes alone the risk to propose a new poll. Happily, 100 Mir starts to be a good amount of money, but not to be lost with a failed whitelist. I believe that there should be the option to allow more people to contribute in order to share the risk of a rejected poll.

A poll for Walmart ID 1, was created at the beginning of January. The poll passed, but then nobody proposed a poll to register the parameters. The same has happened for Johnson & Johnson ID 2… Coca-Cola ID 8, Nike ID 9, Samsung ID 11,… Square ID 14, Galaxy Digital ID 15, Peloton interactive ID 18, Microstrategy ID 19 (Microstrategy was also proposed with poll ID 65, this time rejected !!! but we only needed to poll for parameters) McDonald’s ID 21, Spotify ID 22, Adobe ID 24, Intel Corp ID 25,… Polkadot ID 38 .

I personally could not have imagined, before looking at the list of polls, how many parameters per poll already passed had not been proposed, and are still waiting for a proposal.

Coinbase (COIN) has been proposed for poll twice in the last two weeks.

So, I think that there should be as well a list of already whitelisted assets that still need parameters to be proposed for polls ( I still believe that parameters should be created automatically for each asset that passes a poll, maybe just to choose which oracle provider once there will be the option…or better to already include it with the whitelist proposal).

Mirror Protocol is something amazing, it has already achieved a lot in a very short period of time with the best still to come.

There are many interesting proposals that I believe are still waiting for the V2 changes. I thought we would have already seen some of the most important changes to continue developing mirror protocol…but many things are going on within the Terra ecosystem and we know that at Terraform Labs people work like mad…It may, however, would be interesting to know where we are with the changes…

1 Like

Wow! I discovered LUNA at the end of Jan - didn’t know that this happened. These are the types of stocks that I would love to have on Mirror. Listings like Samsung broadens exposure for most of the world using Mirror since Korean stocks are often hard to get access to.

Perhaps we need to look into implementing quadratic voting into the DAO? Although I think LPs with a lot of MIR deserve to have more say on new mAssets to preserve their yield.

This is confusing and frustrating: these votes should be combined in the future.

No doubt tokenized stocks on Binance increases competition for Mirror - we need to get organized to make the decentralized + dao aspects of Mirror to actually add value. Let’s break the mold with Mirror Finance.

1 Like

Hi Rob. I’ve been working on a little assessment of existing mAssets, rejected ones, ones that have been suggested but not polled and then a review of diversification into classes/categories that are not presently represented. Personally I don’t want the asset options to be over-concentrated in, for instance, U.S. NASDAQ “Growth” Equities.

1 Like

I’m with you on this, but the mechanism for proposing listings kind of removes the possibility of a plan. Each listing needs to be proposed and voted on, so the community can just not follow the plan. If you can get some Mirror whales to back your plan you’re probably in luck.

Personally I’d like to see us shoot for getting the top-100 by market cap of S&P, NASDAQ, NYSE, commodities, and indexes/ETFs all listed. Then other popular and new and upcoming assets can be added on an ad-hoc basis as demanded by the community.

Or we just stick to being a popular vote only list. Maybe there could be a daily random proposal of an asset from all those sources with proposal fee paid for by the community fund. 365 new proposals a year will get us somewhere eventually. Plus community provide proposals too.

1 Like

Awesome! We await your findings. Diversification is good - we want people to be able to quickly get a broad level of exposure to different sectors and regions of the world. Growth stocks are popular, so I think too many of them have been put up for proposal. The people who need Mirror Finance to access stocks probably don’t need 10 different highly-correlated growth names to choose from at this point in the protocol’s development.

1 Like

You’re right - that’s why I’ve opened this post asking how we can change governance to be more organized and effective. Mirror v2 has a lot of changes relating to governance, thankfully.

My understanding is that whales/big LPs want to slow the number of new mAssets so yields stay competitive. Someone correct me if I misunderstand.

I guess there is an economic incentive to have as few liquidity pools as possible because the available Mirror is spread between them. Whether whales are actively pursuing that I couldn’t say, but it seems unlikely since it would be easy for them to downvote addition of new mAssets and thus far I seem to recall most of the ones approved have substantial whale votes behind them. For sure 200% APR is nice but it also requires 50:50 mAsset to UST allocation - a better yield would be had by accumulating MIR and having MIR moon which is something that will happen if MIR is very successful and attracts a lot of users right?

1 Like

Mirror it’s the driver for Terra Luna UST, retail, investors and traders. We need to focus on markets like China, Turkey, countries where people are restricted to trade stocks. Also, Binance listing stocks, it’s a good thing because people in the end will discover Mirror that it’s a better option descetralized.

1 Like

I’ve just suggested this in the new asset / mechanism forum.

Proposal → Due to low voting turnout when whitelisting assets, I suggest we bulk whitelist the top 25 assets by market capitalisation for the following stock exchanges. NYSE, NASDAQ, Tokyo, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Euronext, Toronto, Bombay.

This way we can add 225 assets in one vote, and get some of the largest companies globally listed. Will drive uptake in several key markets globally.

I realize it would be a bit of work for the people managing the assets, but the recent failed asset adds highlight the need to get multiple assets added quickly.

1 Like

I like this a lot. Quickly will get us closer to our goal. The one hiccup is how yields will be affected - it might be better off to stagger listings or be more selective at first.

Ok, the staggering solution could be solved like this. :arrow_down:

Proposal → Due to low voting turnout when whitelisting assets, I suggest we bulk whitelist the top 25 assets by market capitalisation for the following stock exchanges. NYSE, NASDAQ, Tokyo, London, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Euronext, Toronto, Bombay, and Korea.

I’m not sure how the yields would be affected, but this is a good point. We could make an adjustment into how the pools are listed. Perhaps the liquidity would come from the groups of people most interested in the pairings. Koreans - Korean pool, Japanese - Japanese pools, etc.
The dev’s might be able to see where to target the listing to where the most transactions are taking place.

The assets will be added in a weekly fashion over the course of 10 weeks.

A social media campaign could run in key markets over the 10 weeks driving local knowledge and generating excitement.

Week 1 NASDAQ top 25
W2 Korea top 25
W3 Tokyo
W4 Shanghai
W5 Euro
W7 London
W8 Bombay
W9 Hong Kong
W10 Toronto

This way we can add 250 assets in one vote, have a staggered listing procedure and get some of the largest companies globally listed. Will drive uptake in several key markets globally.

I realize it would be a bit of work for the people managing the assets, but the recent failed asset adds highlight the need to get multiple assets added quickly.

Stocks listed per week could be 10 to 25, doesn’t matter, but having a systemic solution to the listing is crucial.

I personally don’t really want to trade stocks on certain exchanges, and probably would skip votes out of disinterest. This will solve the issue.


Hi all,

Can you let me know if there are any additional categories to be considered?

Categories Notes
ETFs Exchange Traded Funds
Commodities Gold, Silver, and Oil ETFs are the only commodities currently
Real Estate & REITs Real Estate plays and Real Estate Investment Trusts
Directly Tracked Prices and Indexes Track the price of a commodity independent of, for instance, an ETF which represents the commodity. Track indexes directly instead of, for instance, an ETF that tracks the index (e.g. Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500 vs. SPDR S&P 500 Trust ETF)
Exotics Track inflation. Track global cumulative annual carbon dioxide emissions. Track the weather.

Thanks, this sounds great!
Not being able to easily access various assets is not only a China/Turkey/USA problem (especially without staggering fees), so I think this proposal would be a great start.
I’m new to the process here, so I have to ask, how to kickstart this?

I personally think that a more selective approach would be achievable. Batching 250 assets into a single vote seems aggressive.

For completion it is worth considering Germany (Frankfurt) and Switzerland (Zurich) are marketplaces of interest.

At the moment It would be good to list a non-U.S. asset.

We have 9 of the NASDAQ top 25 listed and and 6 more whitelisted for a total of 15 NASDAQ assets.

This sounds great! On the yields there’s currently 150117 Mir going to 21 mAsset pools each month if I got it right. And that inflation reward goes on for 4 years. Since this 10x smth increase in pools we’d not really see much incentive to LP with the current structure. Maybe adding a MIR buyback rate to the LPs at some bp to keep the reward attractive? So the liquidity will go where there’s either anticipated volume or actual volume until some market equilibrium is met for the asset. This would also give a market buying pressure and incentive for the whole protocol/governance to increase total trading volume.

After some thought I would advocate for a freeze on new assets until v2. There’s plenty of runway to grow TVL/volumes with what we have now - batch listing assets is a surefire way to make LPing extremely unattractive given the risks and opportunity costs. The market also isn’t ripping up - if MIR’s price falls dramatically as we keep batch adding assets I guarantee TVL will be demolished. I hope what we can all take away from this thread is that it benefits us to be very smart about what we propose and vote yes on.

The Forex market is the most liquid market, with EURUSD as the most traded pair.