Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
shazow
@shazow.eth
Idea: Yielding Membership Bonds (Generalized Edition) Let's say we have a service that charges $5/yr membership, call it Carpwast. We could have a generalized contract (call it YieldingAAVEUSDCBond) that we'd call to bond 100 USDC with Carpwast as the yield recipient; the contract gives us an NFT like UNIv3; Carpwast would check for a valid bond NFT on authenticating (correct cost basis, correct yield recipient); and over a year Carpwast would collect the ~5% interest. - At any time, we can take out our collateral and the membership implicitly ends, permissionlessly! - Carpwast can claim the earned interest at any time, or auto-claims on exit. - IANACPA but I assume no tax implication for us (basically a loan), Carpwast gets income on claim. - One general contract could serve any number of services (opening a bond needs to specify the yield recipient and correct collateral amount). - Collateral can change over time (as yield shifts), maybe grandfather old accounts, maybe request reups.
3 replies
1 recast
5 reactions
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Why? 🤣🤣🤣
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
So many reasons! 1. Tried and true business model used for banks, now possible by anyone. 2. Disintermediate subscription state, no longer do we need to beg to cancel a subscription. 3. More tax efficient, especially if we use non-stables as collateral. 4. Maybe lending vs paying is more psychologically attractive to customers? Needs to be tested. 5. Less bespoke infrastructure to build for a subscription service with recurring billing, could be a common public good contract onchain that everyone uses. Can probably think of some others. Is this not compelling?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Storage unit subscriptions are not a profit center for MM or hub operators. So why go through all this? Why add a risk factor (what if APY is < $5 in the end)? Why increase the cost of support? And after all, who did not sign up for FC because of the $3 but will, once we offer the alternative of staking $100?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
I'm not making any claims about MM's business model, it's just an imaginary app that has an annual $5/yr fee. Sorry I was unimaginative with the name. If you just wanna use $5 as spam deterrent then Slashable bonds idea is for you. They can even be combined! https://warpcast.com/shazow.eth/0x6560fdfc
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
vrypan |--o--|
@vrypan.eth
Ok, the naming and the amount made me think you're talking about Warpcast.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
shazow
@shazow.eth
Lol the thought process was reversed: "Okay let's use a $5/yr example because $100 is a nice round number... What are some apps that charge that much? Oh, here's one, let's do a doppelganger of that as an example."
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
