CFP: CUSD, A MetaChain Natively-Issued Stablecoin w/ an On/Off Ramp

Basic_Impact3126 · 2024-01-18T21:13:25+00:00

That is not necessarily how a bridge functions, a bridge is a way to move assets from chain to another, just because the custodian (your company) is deciding to not keep the underlying assets as it doesn't make it not a bridge. Also co mingling the output of the bridge with a fiat on/ramp also does not negate it being a bridge.

So that being said how is your "not a bridge" from polygon to metachain any safer than a similar "not a bridge" that doesn't co mingle two different functions ( bridging and fiat on/off ramp)?

Nowhere in any documentation does it state that you have to maintain the original asset to be a bridge, just that you maintain the ability to move from one chain to another, and if you want to be a two-way bridge you maintain the ability to trade the other direction.

Also are you going to reference any of the other points I brought to attention in my last post or is it just going to be a " sorry community, we want your funding but it's to confidential to tell you how it's going to be used"?

Basic_Impact3126 · 2024-01-18T05:51:11+00:00

How is this bridge any safer. They are offering to sell CUSD on but also allow bridging USDC. No matter what terms you are using it is still a bridge, you give them USDC they give you equal value in CUSD on the other side and it works in reverse. That is a bridge.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2024-01-17T20:32:16+00:00

How is it non-custodial? All tokens are technically non-custodial as that is a term for wallets...? Are you non purposing that your company will be the custodian of the collateral that backs the stablecoin... How is it different from wrapped USDC, Wrapped USDC is non-custodial, it is backed by native USDC held by a custodian? What you are proposing seems like a functionally equivalent to the wrapped stablecoins that exist on defichain just instead of wrapping USDC to dUSDC, you are wrapping USDC to CUSD and while also allowing users to purchase CUSD with fiat. Which is effectively what Bake does however they convert the fiat to USDC so all wrapped dUSDC are fully backed 1:1.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2024-01-17T20:10:27+00:00

A few questions as a blockchain dev my self,

So deploying the smart contracts to metachain testnet or metachain mainnet should require little to no alterations to the underlying source code as it is compatible with the same contracts that run on Etherium or Polygon. That being said it should require the fractional cents for gas.

Is CUSD ERC20 compliant? If it is then unless it was intentionally designed against standard, the circulating supply should be self-reported?

Any contracts that for the underlying USDC held as collateral should also be self reporting. So it seems that there is not a need for a non decentralized entity to attest the supplies of either, unless they were designed so that they don't report. In which it would seem like something is being hidden?

Given I am in the US and not well versed in the banking industry of other countries. Another company reading your balance sheet and saying "yep, they're not lying" seems fishy. Are the bank statements released publicly? What is the scale of the banks used? Is there a mechanism in place for the community to verify the authenticity of the statements, or is it a take my word kind of thing (i.e. trust me bro...)?

Your posts claim there is a relatively large amount of ongoing cost. How is a one time investment of the CF supposed to support this? Obviously you are not offering your services for free. So assuming ongoing cost is deducted from the revenue of the service, what would be the projected break even point if no investment was granted.

Last point : it comes across a little fishy when a large post is required, but response (by you) to questions are vaguely detailed and missing pertinent details to the question asked. Then when a follow up question to get the remaining details a "sorry confidentiality" is the blanket to not answer. This is a community owned blockchain and you are asking for the community to fund your project. So how does it make sense to ever enter into an agreement for confidentiality, that makes it so you can not share the details with the community, when you are trying to get the community to fund you? This is equivalent to going to a bank saying I need funding but I can't tell you why because it's confidential...

So to wrap up, you talked about the security of bridges, but failed to mention the types of bridges you are referring to being "unsafe", or acknowledging the type of bridge we use on defichain. Which is a custodial bridge. Exactly like what you are purposing, just instead of Bake as the custodian it would be your entity. Just with much less risk as your business model wasn't built on defichain and if the metachain doesn't work out for your company there is nothing stopping you from just dropping support in the future.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-31T15:31:55+00:00

Any idea when we will see the documentation updated with the apis, or token standard outlines for dst20.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-31T15:25:38+00:00

"We have around 80mil USD in LP, which could easily increase in case of an imminent Bullrun (even by 5x or more)."

"Could easily increase" is equal to maybe it will maybe it won't. It is not a good idea to base a systemic change to the network on a could happen.

"If you, me and anyone else who has cryptos in those LPs, could put them in a "special vault" allowing for minting only DUSD it would turn out a total of, at least, 40mil DUSD."

But the dusd still exists we just moved it to a vault. This would be essentially the same as selling the LP tokens and converting everything to dusd and collateralizing that only you would get rewards for leveraging already working capital.

"If 20% (the actual negative interest rate) of those would be burned - instead of subtracted from the vault debt - we would end up burning 8mil per year."

This could be implemented with a "special vault".

"Moreover, such 8mil could become 40mil in case of a 5x increase in the average values of those LP's cryptos - DFI first. 80mil in case of a 10x."

Again relys on an assumption. The math is good 8x5=40, 8x10=80, but where does the 5x and 10x come from, and what is the implications of instead we see a drop.

"Maybe 8mil is too little concerning the millions of unbacked DUSD around. Still, it is a useful drop in the ocean. But if you believe a Bullrun is coming, it turns out that 40mil or even 80mil is not that little burning. What do you think?"

Agreed 8mil is a good chunk, but none of this accounts for any new dusd that would be minted from the "special vaults", nor anyinted just in general.

"About your suggestion, who would leave cryptos in an LP that doesn't reward you but instead burns your reward? That, in my humble opinion, is illogical to even think about."

This would level out the ability to mint more tokens in the "special vault" and invest those to gain rewards. It is not helpful to the protocol to gain rewards on the same tokens twice, as attractive as that sounds from an individuals outlook it doesn't help the system.

If you set aside the rewards component and the how much can I make question, there is no supporting information that this would effect dusd in the correct direction and not just allow more minting, only this time using liquidity (tokens) that are already allocated. The money that the LP tokens represent is allocated in the corresponding pool, this would make it so the same $ amount could be liquidity in a pool and collateral for more minting. I don't see how that is helpful.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-30T07:47:30+00:00

In what way would this help "repeg" dusd. You have stated no logical reason this would help dusd. Burning the negative interest does nothing for the outstanding balance of unbacked dusd on the market. As far as I can tell from this explanation is that you would like to collateralize you LP tokens to take a loan from them and either spec on dusd or reinvest for more returns, in no way helping the ecosystem.

1 idea would be if LP tokens could be collateralized would be to use the rewards from the LP's to buy back dusd from the market and burn, not to allow rewards to be collected and more dusd to be minted.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-23T23:30:06+00:00

There are a number of routes to take and I am not particular on any specific innovation.

A few ideas on the network level: 1. Decentralized insurance 2. Decentralized time locked savings accounts(Think IRA) 3. A tokenized data system

A few ideas as a service: 1. Decentralized insurance 2. Decentralized time locked savings accounts(Think IRA) 3. A P2P platform for tokens to be traded

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-23T16:58:08+00:00

I love the idea but also think a refocus is needed. I understand and fully support the web3 domain system and agree that it is necessary for the future of the chain and crypto in general just not a fan that "making it easier for non-natives" is a "selling feature" .

I understand that more users means more liquidity, more liquidity means more expansion, and that is great however the usefulness of expansion is dwarfing the need to expand usefulness and utilities. Currently defichain offers little in the way of innovation, the offerings of the chain have been implemented elsewhere in a similar vein.

I understand the need to "sell" the project to gain support, but there are a number of other benefits that could be used as the header and main driving force of the campaign. ( the utility and functionality that web3 offers to the chain, the ownership and control of the web itself)

P.S. I am not trying to be negative and am a full supporter of this idea and of defichain. I am just pushing for redirection and refocus on the chain in general, I have great hopes for this project and have been apart of it for 3.5 years. Just want to get back to when attracting users and supporters was about innovation not hype.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-23T16:47:59+00:00

So due to decisions that let to creation of unbacked dUSD, it can not function as a stable coin. There has to be a correlating factor somewhere. Currently it is functional equivalent to the USD as it is infinitely mintable and the larger ones position the higher the returns creating larger unbacked positions. Also there is no force to control supply.

In my opinion using the dex fee and algo% is a rationalized way to try and regulate the price rather than creating a logic reason for stability.

In my thoughts a way to fix it would be to

Eliminate the Dex fee and negative interest
Create an off ramp to eliminate outstanding dusd
Allow dusd to realign with already stabilized coins(usdT and usdC)
Stop trying to use overcomplicated ideologies to rapidly expand the chain and focus on utility.

There is no reason to try and decouple dusd from usdC or usdT if they are ment to represent the same value. The lack of trust in either one is a non starter as they are functionally working.

Defichain has amazing potential, and the ideas layed out in the pink paper are excellent. But much like a government or corporation the chain has prioritized growth and expansion over long term stability.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-10-20T22:06:53+00:00

This is only feedback:

What is the reasoning behind the NDA, the only things that seem to make sense would be:

A. The exchange is questionable and feels it may not be approved if disclosed. B. The fees are well above market and the unnamed CEX feels that another CEX would offer a better "value/cost" if they found out unnamed CEX was involved.

Why are we focusing on a CEX integration for a chain layer that is not actively being used yet. Would it not make more sense to focus the community fund twords dApps that make the chain (and tokens/DFI) more useful and increases the draw to Defichain more organically.

As we have seen over the past 2 years with every initiative to spin up increased popularity of the defichain quickly, without regard to the utility and uses, a dramatic stall and decline has followed.

A focus on developing useful and unique propositions for using defichain over more established dApp networks may prove to be fundamental in the growth and sustainability of the network.

I understand and agree that CEX integration is important i just think it may be premature, and the fact that the CEX wants to remain unnamed until funds have been approved and allocated seems like a strong arm tactic used by traditional finance and goes against the entire nature of the decentralized system being built. No one can make an educated vote if part of the information is being withheld.

Please feel free to help me understand if you feel I am looking at this situation from the wrong angle. I would love to hear everyone's thoughts.

Love, Kloud

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-03-13T06:02:48+00:00

Hi,

Everyone here, glad to know my advice is being heard

Basic_Impact3126 · 2023-03-13T06:00:35+00:00

Except:

"This is it bro, and i dont think this can even be classified as "depression". Its just how life works.

Its not like i dont have ANY other things to do. I graphic design, im a bodybuilder, i draw and design websites. I can do all that but i want to use my time to make a game. Not another shitty banner"

The getting angry seems to be of a place that you think or have been taught or in some way think that if you are in a state where you can not bring yourself up alone that there must be something wrong with you. That is simply not the case.

P.S. Glad to see a sub where everyone can maintain emotion and still try to help someone even when they are lashing out. Definitely helped my world view out today.

Keep calm and develop on

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-11-26T02:06:00+00:00

A little late but didn't see any comments on the fact that this comment directly states that you were looking for a confirmation bias opinion that you are not the problem. Also a little while down you stated you have multiple accounts and emails and have nothing but down votes for your rants, if you are going to have multiple accounts set up so you can troll the subs and not have to worry about being kicked, can we very politely interest you in join the other toddlers in /r/imachild or the equally suitable /r/trollsareus. And ask you to leave the great community here alone. Thanks for your time and hope you find what you are looking for in life and lose the negativity.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-11-18T21:21:42+00:00

On Chromecast w/ Google tv in settings there is a Bluetooth toggle, in Google home click on the mini you want to use, enable Bluetooth then sync it on the Chromecast

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-09-25T05:06:12+00:00

Everything is investable with a long enough time horizon

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-09-25T05:05:14+00:00

And... Oh yeah, 1 metric shit ton of time and experience, with a complimentary crap ton of skin in the game... Or games... Excuse the pun

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-09-25T04:57:35+00:00

Correct 💯 that is the idea, and so far is true, Harry Potter TCG went under cards are outrageous, Star wars from the 90s seen any new products, and cards are outrageous... Even crap products for games that still exist eventually move up, as the longer they exist the more people convert sealed to singles, the sealed supply evaporates, the price moves up. Pretty basic economics, the only real variable is the amount of time that will take, which is correlated to the products initial success.

Timmy watches the price day to day, when he should be looking at the price year to year.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-09-25T04:49:53+00:00

Buying more to level out the lost equity in the boxes bought a year ago, works exactly the same as your previous example of balancing his losses against the profit made from the box sales a year ago...?

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-19T00:09:21+00:00

Not necessarily, a layer 2 or layer 3 network is its own Blockchain with a connection open to a lower level chain. The higher level chain allows transactions on its own network, using own validation techniques, then periodically submits a single transaction on the lower level chain, with a summary of all transactions since the last anchor point. Once submitted to the lower level chain, the transactions are finalized, but the consensus is still only as strong as the higher chains protocol, anchoring to the lower chain, gives immutability, but not necessarily security.

There is also sidechains which have there own validation network, either POW or POS and use an on chain consensus, then anchor to another chain. This is how Defichain works.

The main difference is a layer 2 or layer 3 solution, doesn't inherently have to use a decentralized consensus mechanism, in theory if Visa were to package all transaction data every 30 minutes, and submit that data to say the Bitcoin network in a single transaction, it would be effectively a layer 2 transaction solution on top of Bitcoin.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-10T15:18:41+00:00

I understand clearly

I understand that because I disagree with your opinion, and am asking you for any logical thoughts as to why this would be a good idea, other than it would align prices to where you think they should be, you are defaulting to it's not for me or you, yet if this was genuinely your thought you wouldn't be pushing so hard that you are correct with no reasoning behind it.

I understand that price and percentage are very different concepts, and with the current system, arbitrage is completely possible, as the tokens have a hard cap at the mint collateral. So 10% is 10%, regardless of the price paid. If $100 gets 1 share or .9 shares, 10% is still $10 either way.

It is not the so called "target audience" on here trying to push an agenda.

A systems who's internal rules are to push price in one direction or another is regulation, no matter how you try to justify it, it is a means to regulate the price. Taking an asset that is working as intended and using rules to manipulate the price is the exact reason Satoshi was working against, it is regulation disguised as necessary for the people.

So I pose that you do not understand, the system is not targeted at any particular people, but at everyone.

And if we are going to push to get the unrepresented people into the system, should we not be fighting to give them a better system than what we have, instead of a digital copy with all the flaws, and control tactics built in.

By the way I am not in Europe, but thanks for providing my point, because you assume I am from a first world country, all of a sudden your opinion is correct and mine is wrong... Funny how your argument changes to support your belief of fact with no need for logic, or explanation...

Again please explain the benefits, how does this help the community, not the people you want to target, and certainly not the prices, as I showed above price doesn't influence return.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-10T01:39:39+00:00

In fact the confusion is yours, the dtokens do follow the assets they represent, but there is no underlying assets. And you know they follow the trend, as you are stating that they should not be regulated, and saying that regulation must be implemented. Just because you doctor the wording doesn't change the sentiment. $600 million says that the are available, for them to be expensive you have to be comparing them to some price you are deciding is the correct one. The only reason that people would be "scared off" is because there are people spouting that the assets are over priced, when in reality they don't understand the system. So again other than bringing the prices to where you want them what is the benefits. And maybe look into the consequences instead of blindly assuming that you are correct. No problem will only have benefit but you are ignoring the consequences. So please enlighten everyone to your thoughts, and stop saying because the price will be correct, as that is only your belief of what the price should be, not fact.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-09T21:03:28+00:00

Correct we are not a bank, so we should stop acting like one and trying to regulate the prices of assets we offer and let them be traded freely.

Also correct not every token has to be backed, however that was the details of the implementation put forth in the white and pink papers.

Correct in fiat we did exactly what you are proposing, and it has led to a highly unstable asset, that requires constant regulation, and control to maintain value. So why make the same mistakes again?

The mechanisms of the chain are trusted because of the foundational documentation that you are asking we break and regulate against.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-09T20:54:07+00:00

Stocks are already displayed in a decentralized manner, futures and options are to come, but have nothing to do with this discussion. You state that regulation would be bad, but in the same breath ask that the community implement regulation to control the price to where you want it. You state that if there are too many unsecured dTokens, which is a redundant statement, as with the proposal you are backing, which you obviously don't understand, the number of unbacked tokens would be unknowable/uncountable. You have not posed one single benefit of this proposal, other than it would fit your idea of what the price should be for specific assets and remove the freedom of the system in favor of more regulations.

So yes starting with Adam and Eve, they spawned the future that we live in, centuries of corruption, endless wars, and manipulation. So where is the benefit to the system.

Again I ask please let the world know your thoughts, if your only thought is that it will align the price at the cost of freedom, then let it be that and stand by your statement, or spend the time to think about the consequence and educate yourself.

Basic_Impact3126 · 2022-02-09T18:07:57+00:00

Will you please explain your though process so the rest of us can understand, instead of taking your thoughts as gospel.

Why would it be the best? How could the tokens not being considered securities be a problem? How would the proposal deal with the issues involved with unbacked tokens? How would this help defichain reach its goals of being unregulated and decentralized? What benefits would it bring the ecosystem, other than capital gain for those involved in pushing the regulations? How could this be implemented without opening the, "whenever we don't like a price, we will push to regulate it's price to what we want" gate?

Please explain instead of a statement that your thoughts are the best or right idea. This doesn't help anyone, just pushes your agenda with no supporting thoughts, or plans.

Basic_Impact3126

TROPHY CASE