Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
eggman 🔵
@eggman.eth
I must once again ask you all to respect the fact that I built a stablecoin backed by dogecoin, and it's held the peg for 10 months without issue. (this is easily the dumbest, but also the best thing I've built this cycle)
10 replies
13 recasts
58 reactions
thej0n 🎩🍖🤝
@thej0n.eth
I respect you fren! 👊 But I see a flaw in the logic. I hope I am wrong, but I can’t not say it. Feel free to dm me. I am not trying to be disrespectful in any way!
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
eggman 🔵
@eggman.eth
Feel free to throw it out, it's getting an audit anyway 😅
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
thej0n 🎩🍖🤝
@thej0n.eth
👊 again, I respect you a lot! And I admire your skills and “devotion” to solving this. But I am afraid it is mission impossible. Either you have to hold enough USD, (which is very profitable with zero interest, ref. USDT) or you will always have the liquidation risk.. 🤷 you can give it a “margin of safety” but it doesn’t exist. So you are left with either holding much much more collateral, or simply enough USD. Please elaborate how you can avoid this? 365🤝
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
eggman 🔵
@eggman.eth
Every stablecoin carries this risk :’) even usdc doesn’t have instant liquidity available - treasury bonds for example can’t instantly translate to on-chain backing, especially outside of trading hours. USDO literally won’t let you mint a USD equivalent token unless there’s a significant level of backing in dogecoin available; running up to a 900% backing requirement, meaning it’d survive a sizeable black swan sized nuke while maintaining the peg. Anyone minting or redeeming USDO would then pay a variable fee rate (starting at 0.25%) which is paid out to those who are staked in to the pool, keeping it competitive with other stable yield options (while drawing that yield from real fees).
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
thej0n 🎩🍖🤝
@thej0n.eth
Ok cool! 900% is along the line I am thinking in necessary. (And still you have a marginal black swan risk 😅) And if you can build a “fund” to create extra yield, and extra security I think you might be on to something. And preferably long term lock ups and staking. The reward system should reflect those willing to lock, and or provide liquidity. (Some people don’t like this. And I don’t like those people 😅) I have been “pondering” this for a long time. And I still struggle with the math (black swan). You cannot avoid it, but you can make it almost “unthinkable”. And if some profits are set aside the whole time, the math gets better! (And better) And if the alternative is holding with no yield. It is a valid case.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
