[Proposal] Mirror Protocol's Rescue Plan

Please see below the details of the proposal.

6 Likes

I agree, this is an opportunity to update and renew the protocol for survival itself.
to maintain the prices of M-assets there is nothing like the open market and freedom of arbitration, mechanisms that when the premium is far away can be burned and issued until reaching equilibrium, generating real incentives to seek a 0 premium.

What will happen to existing holders of mAssets (long or short)?

I am strongly in favor of this proposal and I would happily get involved to make it happen.

It’s not clear to me that the new Terra chain is the best place for this to happen though. If we’re not going to need/use UST, why not move to Fantom, Avalanche or even Solana?

The plan seems good enough.
But MirrorRescue is an account created 8 hours ago.
Lets hear the long time supporters and known accounts that are involved in this? Or at least support it.

3 Likes

I’m fully in support of this as well, thank you for putting this together.

Mirror Protocol should be a top defi application, with the proper adjustments to fix premium issue. This project should not have to die because TerraLuna failed.

Fully support migrating to a new chain. In my opinion, the over reliance of UST and aUST on Mirror is what set it back. We should move to Polygon or AVAX ASAP. I think it would be the best way to distance ourselves from the Foundation.

I haven’t sold any MIR or mAssets in hopes of a revival, because I truly believe in the mission. Mirror finance offers the current best path to a global decentralized financial system at the moment. The target users of mirror are not degens, but rather those who have been kept away from financial opportunities due to archaic regulations.

What can I do to support the plan and rebuild Mirror on a new chain?

Agree, I think a new chain is mission critical to the success of revitalizing Mirror.

Luna2 doesn’t stand a chance, and this is our opportunity to distance from the Foundation and become an independent project.

Holders of mAssets will be encouraged to close their positions and migrate to the new version. This should happen naturally because after the migration snapshop of MIR, all MIR earned on Terra Classic following the migration will have a value of near zero.

A delisting of all mAssets on the current version would allow everyone to close their positions at Oracle value, which is a good option. That being said, no one has to wait for such delisting to close a position (and long farmer at the moment should do it asap given the current premiums).

1 Like

A short-term migration to Terra (new chain) is simply a business call as it would require way less dev work than building from scratch on another blockchain.

Our view is that we need to ensure the survival of Mirror Protocol first before going multichain. This requires a fast deployment of a first iteration of a v3 and we are of the view that using Terra (new chain) would be the fastest and cheapest way to achieve that first step (because of the compatibility with Terra Classic).

Once it is done, we are of the view that the community should indeed consider without delay were to expand the protocol.

Please note that we are in close contact with many Terra Classic projects and that at the moment BSC’s representatives are very agressive to onboard projects and are offering generous grants. BSC does not have the best reputation, but again, the project needs funding and this could be a good opportunity to build a first EVM compatible version of Mirror Protocol (that will then be easier to port elsewhere) without depleting all of the community pool.

All that being said, we are of the view that before developing a version for another blockchain, if this involves community funding, a governance poll shoud be put out first to obtain community approval to move forward.

3 Likes

That is indeed a good point.

We are in close contact with ex-TFL employees and we have been strongly advised to work anonymously on the project given the current SEC Investigation and the risks involved. We are following the advice even though we have been using Mirror Protocol since its inception and will not reach out to anyone we know to not risk doxxing ourselves.

We anticipate that the SEC Investigation will also be a concern for any dev/dev agency/audit firm that will be asked to work on the v3. That is why the proposal states that a proper legal opinion on that subject needs to be obtained so we can give them (hopefully) some comfort regarding the potential risks/liabilities of working on/for Mirror Protocol.

Given the current price of MIR and what it would cost to deliver everything stated in the proposal, this poll requires a massive leap of faith from the community as the amount of MIR requested is substantial. We are aware of that.

All that being said, the community’s options are limited. Let the protocol die and MIR go to zero or take a chance (which is not without risks) and fund the development of a v3.

We are confident that if quorum can be reached in the circumstances, the community will decide for Mirror Protocol to live another day.

1 Like

LOL. The community poll is like a piece of dead meat, attracting all sort of flies…

This all looks great but there’s absolutely no reason you need 20m MIR from the current community fund. Just relaunch Mirror and take a 15% share for the team and for your development expenses. Moot point as there’s no chance of hitting 18% governance now.

Also don’t waste $ on a legal opinion, launching a securities trading venue is clearly a breach of US securities law. If you’re going to do it, then do it. But “asking a lawyer” just wastes money.

1 Like

I support this proposal. My answer is very simple because I am used to the Terra.

Really like the initiative but if you believe in what you are doing and expect to achieve it then pricing MIR at $0.10 seems completely unreasonable.
If you dont believe you can achieve it then whats the point?
Moderate success should price MIR back at $1 and possibly much higher so asking for 20M MIR seems way too much

1 Like

@MirrorRescue
The plan sounds good, I wonder when will the “delisting of all mAssets” happen?

I have plenty of mAssets in my wallet. Should I keep them or sell them for those pennies?
Or are we going to somehow compensate such holders via MIRv2 tokens on a new chain? That would definitely restore some trust in the protocol.

Is it possible to de-list the mAssets now/in the next couple days? So that all short positions can be closed at the oracle price?

i dont understand. Should we do anything with our mAssets or it will be automatically paired with usdc?

The existing mAssets very likely will be worthless. Don’t expect them to be automatically paired with USDC. Than chance is 0.

Actually, this proposal sounds like a real scam… Nevertheless any proposal in this situation will look like that. Not sure what I expected to see to think differently…

Anyway, I am really in favor of reviving the Mirror protocol based on a different stablecoin. In terms of dev, the simplest way would be to just change the base currency to say a wormhole USDC. However there is too low liquidity in Terra and in USDC at the moment. There would probably be much more in Terra 2.0.

The second solution would be to leave everything as it is, but simply add UST price in $ as a coefficient to the mAssets pricing model, in order to compute/display mAsset prices in USD instead of UST. This would also affect liquidation logic and min collateral calculations, etc.

The third solution is to try to port core smart contracts to BSC or Solana. Porting the front-end should be pretty straightforward, except the part where the smart contract messages are constructed. I am not expert in differences between Terra and Bsc or Solana, but my best guess would be that messages may remain in the same format. So just smart contracts to rework. My vote will go to BSC because of low comissions, quick confirmation time and already existing mAssets and LPs (in pancakeswap).

In all cases, this work may only be done by one or several Dev experts. It certainly DOES NOT cost $2M nor 20M MIR. A better funding model would be some long-term vesting of MIR tokens:

  1. just enough to pay minimal salary during the dev phase
  2. plus a solid bonus at the Release date
  3. plus a share of generated cash flow in order to keep supporting the project long-term

The very last solution is simply do nothing. Just wait until the dust settles, UST will probably stagnate in some narrow range near 0.05. So arbs will just need to adjust their weights to achieve delta neutrality, project could continue living with the remaining user base and liquidity, both hopefully will grow in time if the premiums issue will finally be solved more effectively.

I would love to have an opinion of the SIMP group and the community.

4 Likes