[Proposal] Delist MIR, ANC from collateral list

New Asset / Mechanism
#1

Overview

At the launch of Mirror Protocol v2, new types of collateral such as aUST, MIR, LUNA, and ANC were introduced for mint positions to provide a greater variety of collateral assets.

While the addition of aUST to the list of collateral was a success with users interacting with both Anchor Protocol and Mirror Protocol for more optimized yield farming while having relatively low liquidation risks, MIR and ANC collateral types were not able to deliver such utility to the users.

This governance proposal suggests to delist MIR and ANC from Mirror Protocol’s collateral types.

Reason 1. Current demand for MIR and ANC collateral types

General trend of borrowed position holders in Mirror Protocol seem to prefer collateral with low volatility and minimum collateral ratio threshold.

But, MIR and ANC tokens both have a collateral multiplier of 1.333334, which makes the minimum collateral ratio much higher than other collateral types.

The number of positions open with MIR and ANC collateral is extremely low. As of Nov 26th 2021:

  • Total number of CDPs open: 18,900
  • Positions open with MIR collateral: 22
  • Positions open with ANC collateral: 6

Reason 2. Migration of MIR-UST, ANC-UST pools from Terraswap to Astroport DEX

As of today, the poll to redirect MIR-UST rewards to Astroport is highly likely to pass.

Changes if the poll passes

If this poll passes by majority YES vote, the following changes are expected:

  1. No more borrowed / short positions can be opened with MIR or ANC collateral, and depositing more collateral will also be blocked to these positions.
  2. Collateral withdrawal or closing of borrowed / short positions MIR / ANC will be allowed.
  3. Even after the two assets are delisted from collateral list, liquidations can still happen. It is highly recommended that you close any positions using the mentioned two assets as collateral.

The poll for this proposal will go live within this week.

2 Likes
Addition of LunaX (synthetic staking derivate by Stader) as a Collateral asset
#2
#3

i completely forgot anc/mir can be used as collateral, but unsure if my case is unique or common.

is there a downside to not delist them? perhaps future downstream protocols can leverage this utility.

1 Like
#4

Glad to see you back, Sihyeok!
If we chose to delist MIR and ANC, why not delist LUNA as well? Since LUNA is also volatile(but maybe in different direction than MIR).
Could you tell us how many positions opened with LUNA collateral?

2 Likes
#5

Actually, there are 282 positions opened with LUNA collateral.
Definitely much higher than MIR, ANC combined. Also, no issues with LUNA concerning Astroport at this moment.

Addition of LunaX (synthetic staking derivate by Stader) as a Collateral asset
#6

Can you better elaborate reason 2.?
P.S. ok for reason 1.

1 Like
#7

Is there a costly drag on the protocol if we were to leave them open?
If it’s not broken then why “fix it” ??

What does the migration of the pools from one DEX to another have to do with one’s ability to provide an asset as collateral??? I think the lack of adoption is because of lack of awareness. There’s nothing wrong with the “utility” and I argue they are 100% able to deliver. The open positions prove it.

Focus on the adoption, don’t give up and quit. We’re literally just coming up on 1yr since Mirror Protocol’s first article on Medium and you’re literally calling it quits on something that was introduced only half a year ago and half a year into Mirror’s inception. I think this idea’s just overzealous at the moment.

This is the only way to liquidate someone for their MIR or ANC tokens and to take away the ability to borrow against your ANC/MIR also takes away value, utility. People don’t want coins they can only sell for more money.

4 Likes
#8

What does the migration of the pools from one DEX to another have to do with one’s ability to provide an asset as collateral? And 282 positions are not that much comparing to 18,900(total number of CDPs open).

1 Like
#9

Is this primarily a safety precaution to protect people from high-risk liquidations? There is already such little utility/reason to hold MIR and ANC that I would be hesitant to vote for removing one of the few things you can do with them. Also unclear on what reason #2 has to do with delisting them as collateral on Mirror.

2 Likes
#10

I’d follow up to ask after this weeks bloodbath…

Did those open positions get affected by liquidations? If not, then I would insist that proves these assets are reasonable to keep as collateral.

2 Likes
#11

i dont see this poll up yet; is it cancelled?

would like to move my anc into a cdp!

#12

Why are we voting to interfere with other people’s bets? Weren’t ANC and MIR added in V2 with the understanding they were volatile? Why/How is that a reason now to delist them?

If you’re voting Yes, then you’re voting no confidence in ANC and MIR as assets worth investing in and you should just dump your coin to prove the OP right.

So what if people aren’t using it enough? I’d recon that not enough people are using the protocol altogether. You’re just taking away reasons to use it by voting yes.

And if I understand correctly Astroport has nothing to do with someone’s short position and their collateral. OP hasn’t explained the connection between Astroport and collateral on Mirror Protocol.

Vote No and let people bet how they want to bet.

4 Likes
#13

I signed up for the forums just to weigh in on this. I am very concerned that this proposal is passing. The “reasons” listed are facts about MIR/ANC and their LPs, but they do not provide real justification for delisting them as collateral.

What problem is delisting going to solve? None has been described.

What problems could it cause? People borrow against assets they expect to grow. The entire LUNA ecosystem depends on people using Terra like this. This is going to slam the door on a potentially very important use case. With time, MIR can become less volatile and massively increase in its position as collateral. There was a time when it was hardly reasonable to use Bitcoin or Eth as collateral, but now this is an extremely important use case.

Even if you do not believe MIR is going to grow and therefore be useful as collateral on Mirror Protocol, why vote to close the option for others?

4 Likes
#14

I fully agree with the concerns raise by bee123456789. One very troublesome problem with the MIRROR protocol is lack of stability: (1) added list got delisted (2) weighting parameters got changed frequently. It is just like the game rules keep changing during the middle of the game.

3 Likes
#15

You have used this game reference before. The fact is this is defi and exactly how defi is intended to operate. People want defi and then complain when it works exactly how it should work where people vote and the direction can change. Place your vote but do not get upset if people vote opposite your view and please stop acting like this is a game or that nothing can ever be changed. That is not how defi works at any design level. There would be no point of governance according to your theory because any change you disagree with is one that “changes the rules of the game”.

1 Like
#16

No one is saying that DeFi governance should not be operated by means of voting. We are asking people to actually think about what they are voting on and decide if the reasons described by the OP are actually good reasons for delisting these as collateral. It is absolutely possible for people to see that the “Yes” is popular and throw their money at it without doing any critical thinking.

2 Likes
#17

That is exactly what the guy is saying by keep referencing “games” and keep saying “game rules keep changing during the middle of the game.” That exact statement is saying defi governance should not be operating the way it is because operating under that statement nothing can change according to him because if anything changes then it is changing in “the middle of the game.”

#18

That’s fine, something about MIR and ANC being useable as collateral didn’t seem right anyway.

#19

in short, what is the benefit of delisting ?? Seriously, this proposal reduces the capabilities of the protocol - why exactly do we want to remove features ? The weak reason provided in the proposal makes absolutely no sense…

#20

Many people are asking the same questions. Is there a way to “ping” the OP to clarify these reasons, like how the migration of MIR-UST LP to Astroport actually supports its delisting as collateral? No one here seems to understand what makes this an actual justification.