I’m trying to figure out why so many people would vote NO on some of these legitimate polls to whitelist assets in governence. The more assets we have in mirror the more liquidity and trading volume we produce for the ecosystem…what would be a reason to vote NO and WHY?
The pool reward drops every time an asset is added. Imagine you got an m-stock with expected 5-30% returns a year and MIR rewards as low as couple percent why would anyone stake their mAsset-UST it’s better to hold on to your mAsset.
Another reason has to just do with the overall direction for Mirror. Do we focus on “meme stonks” and leveraged ETFs to try and get the degens? Or do we focus on blue chips and try to get buy-and-hold investors? Or do we do something else? I believe that a haphazard approach to adding assets is going to greatly hinder adoption, because lots of people will look at it and go “wth is this trying to be?”
Personally, I worrying about reward decreases is short sighted, because the MIR rewards aren’t the point of Mirror. But, that’s what a lot of people are here for, thus the argument.
Personally, I think we would be better served by doing something like “Whitelist all assets in DJIA/S&P500/whatever, in order of average daily volume.” rather than trying to do it one at a time. Or even just put the high level direction for Mirror up for a vote and stop meandering around.
Oh, and one last reason to vote no: if it’s a stock that has a sizable dividend.
The whole point here is to promote trading and if you trade equities most ‘traders’ don’t care about the underlying company they are trading. They care about liquidity and price action. They want to be able to get in and out of a trade easily. Is mirror intended to be designed as a yield farming vehicle or an avenue to establish underlying value of real world assets to be traded regularly? Sounds to me like everyone here wants to have their cake and eat it too.
Not saying I necessarily disagree, but playing devil’s advocate, is trading the purpose of Mirror? It doesn’t even have its own trading mechanism and relies entirely on TerraSwap for it. It seems like if trading were the point, it would also have more features like charting and different order types.
I think it’s pretty clear it’s not a yield farming platform (despite that being what’s attracting most people atm), otherwise the yields wouldn’t be scheduled to end.
I think the reason it’s so hard to answer this question is that everyone wants Mirror to be what they want it to be, but that isn’t necessarily what anyone else wants it to be, or even what it was originally conceived as. I think decentralizing the governance at this early stage was a mistake, and that without direction it’s going to flounder around for much longer than it needs to.
In my perspective , here are the reasons why I’d vote No to some whitelist requests:
Requestor can’t be bothered to put a forum thread to explain why the asset makes sense (and instead we get a link to the yahoo finance page lol)
The asset has been through a whitelisting vote in the past and got rejected
The asset by nature is not providing enough differentiation from the already high number of US tech stocks listed on Mirror , to justify diluting rewards by listing it. If/when the tech bubble bursts, i’d like to have options to protect my capital
‐ The requestor shouldn’t have to explain the asset period. It’s already publicly traded so quit being lazy and go look it it up!
It failed before so you won’t vote for it now…if I jump off a bridge will you jump too? Can you not think for yourself?
What happens when the Mirror rewards go away? What will you do then? You’re burning both ends of the candle here by not giving yourself more options to choose from.
You ok sir ?
I was trying to help you understand how you can reach better consensus by convincing people but feel free to be offended.
I will leave the rest below for others to read in case this can help future props to reach a better success rate
Opening up a thread on the forum is a great way to explain what the asset is about and what does it track (is it an ETF w perf/mgmt fees, dividend paying ?, where is it traded re-timezone for minting ?, etc). This is also an opportunity for the requestor to explain in which trading strategy (arbitrage, hedge, etc) it would make sense to list this new synth, and how this is a net benefit considering the possible liquidity and reward dilution across all pairs if the asset gets listed.
We’ve seen people requesting assets that had already been whitelisted earlier (people could not see duplicates) or rejected earlier (people did not know the community already voted), so it’s usually likely that the vote will swing the same way it did in the past when that happens.
Of course it does not mean you can’t resubmit a proposal down the line and get it successfully passed.
As a personal opinion, I think we should be more selective with mAssets listings. Here’s why:
We need to find assets that maximize the number of new Mirror users : there’s more value in attracting additional TVL via a listing instead of cannibalizing existing TVL. (ie you would think that adding mGwei to Mirror portfolio would attract capital from Ethereum active users or protocols and have a better impact on our TVL vs adding another ticker from the S&P top 20)
Current sideways market for crypto is a strategic opportunity for Mirror to showcase very decent APRs vs the DeFi averages , diluting this competitive advantage should not be done trivially (see point above)
There’s a silent crowd of Mirror users who only post collateral, mint mAssets, provide liquidity and farm MIR as long as they do not have to assume any delta risk , these are people who would otherwise be earning yield on a stack of stablecoins.
We should thank them because we can enjoy great depth in all the pools thanks to their liquidity, but i’m not sure how we will retain their liquidity when the MIR emissions to LPs cease by Y3.
Maybe the answer is that we won’t and therefore we must make sure the platform caters more to traders, in which case we’d have a much bigger appeal if we offered products that are not all indexed on the same industry, the same country, the same regulations - and which will all be impacted in a similar fashion by macro economic events
I vote no for all assets that have or will have a native equivalent in terra.
Like the vote for mEUR when we already have EUT.
Or the vote for mDOT when DOT will most likely be bridged to terra directly.
There’s a few reasons why a mAsset just doesn’t make any sense or would pose a danger to the platform:
- The asset being mirrored is too illiquid in the real world market.
There must be much more liquidity for an asset in the real world market than would exist in Mirror. The unlimited minting mechanism creates a possibility of an oracle attack if there is not enough liquidity.
An example of this is a penny stock.
- The asset would be made irrelevant by Nebula or other protocols.
For example, leveraged assets make more sense being implemented crypto-natively using a protocol that’s focused on leverage. Or ETF products that can be easily reproduced through Nebula.
- Assets impossible to be implemented for whatever reason.
The various assets priced off futures that have been proposed (e.g. Lumber, ETH volatility index, etc) aren’t actually possible to be mirrored because there is no spot price oracle.
Assets which will have native versions on Terra. For example, the current mEuro proposal or cryptos that will have wrapped versions on Terra (especially Cosmos-based assets).
Assets that only make sense during yield farming stage of Mirror. There should be legitimate trading demand for an asset even when MIR emissions end.
#2 is a false point – purchasing UPRO (3x SPY) on Mirror is much better than buying 3x levered mSPY since there’s no dividend handling on Mirror. UPRO has the dividend value built in while mSPY heavily underperforms an S&P ETF