This proposal was discussed at length and using a v2 collateralized vault tied with the ren-bridge for direct BTC transfers in the UI was heavily rejected
This was just 11 days ago so it might be too soon to bring this back up for a vote even though it has been revised. I am not an expert on if this is the most optimal strategy for this vault so I will let others comment on that. I am of the opinion that since we already have a BTC vault, I would like to see vaults already passed for implementation produced first, SNX, and the ETH vault opened for deposits, along with boosts enabled, before we add another BTC vault to the list of things to do.
Not to rain on your parade, but Iām not sure that this really fits the requirements for designing the strategyā itās simply pointing the same, existing strategy at a different BTC vault, and having yearn manually (or automatically) decide between the two. I think rewarding novel strategies need to actually be novel, not just applying the same strategy with one tweak to an extra pool.
For the strategy, I also imagine this evaluation would be done weekly or so (deciding which crvBTC pool is optimal), based on the upcoming gauge weights. I think itās definitely worth implementing, especially once we have our gauge voting up and runningā but I think that is more complex than it seems.
Based on the math, we may also decide that itās optimal to put 75% in one pool and 25% in another if weāre maxing out the returns from one and adding more has diminishing returnsā very similar to what @banteg has talked about implementing for v2 of the yETH vaults. An optimal strategy, and then secondary strategies that fill as the primary one hits the capital ceiling.
thanks for the response. I think this proposal is sufficiently different but will let others comment and respond and make the best decisions. I know the yearn team has a lot going on at this time.
Hey everyone, is there anything that could be done to get the ball rolling on this again? Do we need to better detail the risks, develop a better strategy etc.? Anything the Ren team could help out with?
The APY on the renBTC/wBTC pool on Curve is consistently higher than the renBTC/wBTC/sBTC pool which there exists a vault for already, and the ren pool is arguably safer because it has fewer assets in it.
I would be happy to write a proposal up. Before this though, given what Andre said on the previous proposal (YIP 42: Add RenBTC to yVaults), it seems prudent to address the concerns that were lifted and improve it as best as we can, instead of just submitting an identical proposal, which seems a bit spammy.
What are you envisioning @andre.cronje when you say āthe best integration path for renBTCā? Of course Ren is working with many partners to bring more BTC into the DeFi ecosystem, which could give rise to a few different vault strategies for (ren)BTC. Until that matures though the Curve ren pool does seem viable for a vault, it is nothing fancy but it would seem to give consistently higher APY for BTC than the other vault for BTC that currently exists.
I think I mentioned this on the previous thread that @RyanP is talking aboutā but instead of creating a new Curve ren pool vault, I think it would make more sense for the current crvBTC (sBTC pool LP) vault to simply be able to switch between the sBTC and renBTC pools. Unless there are people who really hate sBTC or who really want to stay in the sBTC pool, I think most would be fine using whichever of those two was generating the highest yield.
I know the team is actively working to get the CRV boosting strategy up-and-running this week for both the yUSD and the crvBTC strategies, so maybe it could become a priority after that?
Yup, this is absolutely the best way imo for the vault to operate. Donāt split our BTC liquidity or CRV voting weight, just shunt it off to whichever strategy has the better yields for that particular week.
Also - we may want to have our CRV voting strategy to whale in near the end of voting, when it becomes more clear which pool will win.
One thing Iām wondering though is how this interacts with Metapools that are being proposed by Curve? How would the YFI Vault go meta over the metapools?
Could you link to the specific discussion youāre talking about with meta pools? Iāve gathered a rough idea of what they are but Iām not sure how they would function regarding trading volume, CRV distribution, etc.
Iāve tried finding detailed material on it but seems they havenāt released a guide yet, there are discussions on Telegram though, for instance: https://t.me/curvefi/148720
Great idea!
However, seems that BTC is low on the priority list for some reason and there are a lot of people with BTC waiting on the sidelines that can add a lot to the TVL.
I think honestly the main issue is backlog of things for devs to work on. There are too many ideas and not enough people who can actually code things up to get a lot of these things implemented.
Realistically, this is not super high-priorityā there is already a vault where users can earn on sBTC/renBTC/wBTC. If someone really wants to stake and farm the higher APY on the ren pool, they can still do it themselves. I also think there is a better, more improved BTC vault coming using Maker (just based on Yearn getting whitelisted on the Maker BTCUSD oracle), but I have no clue how soon that will be coming.
Sounds great.
I suppose that new BTC vault, will use WBTC as collateral on makerdao, get DAI and achieve the same APY as ETH vault.
Or half the current DAI APY since it will be at 200% collaterial rate