Virgin Galatic [NYSE: SPCE] to be added as mAsset - It's mooning already!

Proposal to add Virgin Galatic [NYSE: SPCE] as mAsset on Mirror.

Virgin Galatic is the first publicly traded Space asset which is soon to be included in an ETF. A highly sought after stock which is likely to quite literally soar to the moon. There will be a vast amount of interest in minting and trading Virgin Galatic on the Mirror Protocol.

4 Likes

If you did this oh my gosh please take all my fiat crap money so I can buy some SPCE TSLA and STONKS!! Guys I love this team literally I woke up and wondered where all my DeFi solutions that are actually working are and I took 4 hours to scour the web for L1 synthetics :slight_smile: please integrate this I’m sure there are crypto WSB people dying to toss money at this ;))
Integrate hardware wallet collateral API and I will love u forever :wink: already do but more XD

1 Like

If you have MIR and have them staked for governance. - please vote - Its Poll 72! 6 days to go. Please get your fellow MIR holders behind this

Hi there, is it possible to propose the SPCE asset again? The last vote ended in a stupid way, quorum not reached just for a minimal amount. A bunch of users probably added MIR for staking just before the end of the vote and screwed the vote because the number of MIR required increased just like that…

1 Like

Hi. - I will definitely consider proposing the SPCE asset again but just need to ensure we have the support. If others want this, please post and create some following. I need to pick this up with the Mirror team as it was showing that the quorum was reached so not sure how this changed post the vote closing.

It’s because the quorum is adjusted in real time… which in my opinion is a bad idea.

See discussion here and you are welcome to comment too :wink:

You think you will create a new poll about SPCE? In a few days there won’t be any active vote, so I guess the timing would be perfect. I will for sure vote with all my MIR for it.

We need to get a gauge on what support there is? I’ve been told you can’t whitelist again once rejected but can try. How much voting% will you roughly hold? If you can also drum up support willing to try again but keen this does not go down the same road as I spend a lot of time pushing for votes the previous time around

I don’t really see the point in listing SPCE. Looking at the trend of the stock it doesn’t look healthy, and the chairman cashed out his stake two days ago. With competitors like SpaceX which has a much higher public profile, I don’t see the point in listing SPCE.
The current stocks that are being listed are among the top in terms of market cap (AAPL, GOOGL etc.), I think investors may have way less interest in SPCE, resulting in poor liquidity while diluting the rewards for LPs in other mirrored assets.
Would vote a no.

I think that’s the point though for listing it. It’s a high growth, speculative stock, that actually can be worth X20, 30, 40 +. All early investors sell down stakes and invest again. The Chairman you mention plus the Virgin Group maintain sizeable controlling interests in SPCE. I am not so sure that SpaceX has a higher public profile. Virgin have a worldwide public profile across a number of interests.
Getting exposure to an asset such as SPCE will actually increase activity on the mirror protocol but yes, there is no getting away with when adding a new Masset, rewards for other LPs are reduced,

You can retry the same vote, in fact look at SPY (ETF for the SP500 index), it was rejected just for a few votes missing (usual annoying quorum): Mirror

It is being voted again and this time the participation is higher: Mirror

Since SPCE was rejected just for a few missing MIR staked, maybe this time it will pass.

No offense but a lot of stocks have the potential for going 20X 30X lol. We can’t list them all. IMHO, it’s not like SPCE is bad or anything, but I think many more potential stocks are ranked higher than SPCE. TSM that is the industry leader of semi-conductors. ETFs of the East like China, Japan, Vietnam etc.
Just personal opinion :rofl:

1 Like

The point I’m saying is, we have to take a careful look before whitelisting a mirrored asset. If we have too many of them with little liquidity, it’s not gonna do any good to the Protocol. Look at GME and AMC, they have way less liquidity than other mirrored assets since the wave is pretty much over.
The bar should be high.

Well, GME is a joke stock, just because of WallStreetBets. Obviously, not many professional traders want to be exposed to GME. AMC also dumped because overvalued, maybe that’s the reason for lack of liquidity.

Anyway, these 2 assets passed the vote…

SPCE seems to me a much better quality stock that those 2. But let’s see. In the end we can have different opinions, but a new vote will determine if there is interest or not. If the quorum will be reached we’ll see.

I will vote Yes Again, we need more mAssets to make MIR more attractive

1 Like

If we have already whitelisted a bunch of assets already which are going to be listed in mirror v2, why should we prioritize SPCE over those assets?
If the LP rewards dropped drastically then LPs would leave, then the Protocol can’t grow.
Who would provide liquidity if the rewards can’t compensate IL?

Well well, provide IL potection, like Bancor does, Thorchain will provide IL protection too. If Mirror Protocol wants to be competitive, they need to think about it too.

Ok - So looking in about a week’s time to kick off another Governance Vote - Hope we have all the supporters back again. Obviously pending that Anchor drop in the event there is a diversion of attention elsewhere! The other note to point to the others,…whilst LP’s get diluted somewhat with new mAssets added…the point here this also gives the ability to users that just want to trade a new asset such as SPCE. I for one want exposure to assets such as these and not necessarily will be staking in a pool.

Just rechecking the interest - Do have some support to pop in a Governance vote to list Virgin Galactic?

Not mooning so much now? This company is vapor - we don’t want to reduce yields for this.