This could also just be called yPools.
Since you are participating in strategies that use LP pairs with IL– to create these you always must go to the “Pool” tab on Uniswap.
I think Pools also sound less secure than a Vault, and so that accomplishes the needed difference there as well– you may not get all of the money back that you put in.
Whatever we choose, they should be different, but at the same time there should be some consistency. Maybe yPools is it.
yVortex. What comes out the other side? It’s a mystery.
These are all good points. In addition to distinct branding, educational material, and clear disclaimers, we could in the short-term keep such strategies accessible only by power users who can navigate etherscan and opt-in to using them manually.
We could go as far as not creating a frontend for such strategies till the bottom of the next market, when volatility is low.
I still think, however, that there is demand for a strategy like this from hardcore bulls … and even from soft bulls, as they may find it useful to allocate to it a small % of their ETH and YFI holdings.
If we do not create the front end somone else will, or someone will publish instructions for usiing the contracts directly. We should control the user experience, messaging, branding, and disclaimers.
“Vaults” for safe, non IL strategies and “Lairs” for higher risk strategies (h/t to @LapisLime). Love it.
+1 from me. This would vastly open up our available marketshare and allow YFI to continue to capture value.
The question becomes: do we state upfront what the yPool’d pair is? That could become burdensome and could potentially lead folks to ask why they should use yPools vs something like Uniswap and cut out the middleman.
I think stating up front what it is would be important.
It’s the same concept as the normal vaults– nothing we’re doing is secret or difficult, it’s just automated and bundled with other users to save time and gas– and the same would be true with Uniswap-based strategies as well.
+1 for yPools name and love the idea of using uniswap etc at scale. Excited about this! Hope to see it soon. Also I agree with @LapisLime regarding the front end and disclaimers. As long as the differences and risks are explained clearly between yVaults (risk off) and yPools (risk on) products on the site, I think we should be fine.
I love the yPools name, it clarifies that this is a separate product from vaults but still makes it obvious what it is
I think the strategy is sound but the protocol used to implement it should be different. There is a new AMM that removes impermanent loss and has a decentralized verified on-chain price oracle. I think it should be the new standard for transacting major trading pairs.
I agree that this is more suitable for co-called yPools than for Vaults. IL risk is highly concerning.
Impermanent loss has been solved by CoFiX. Read up: https://medium.com/dragonfly-research/introducing-cofix-a-next-generation-amm-199aea686b6b
Andre seems to be working on an elegant solution to the aforementioned problems. Check out his medium article: https://medium.com/@andre_54855/crypto-economics-perpetual-liquidity-and-il-offsets-197558347a53
No one has solved IL, and any project claiming to do so is being ingenuous and shady. At best there are potentially some that may mitigate IL, but none have been proven to be very successful in production.
Would be hesitate to endorse or use any such project that makes such bodacious claims.
Maybe we can virtually eliminate impermanent loss. But we should at minimum read the whitepaper to judge the pros/cons of there protocol. If there is something we can improve upon maybe we bring the ideas in-house and build a better version. Given that we have superior AUM, token inventory, and soon StableCredit perhaps all of these synergies can create a superior AMM than what is currently available.
Yah this exactly. If you think you can solve this, then you don’t understand what IL is.
So any protocol that even makes a small attempt at mitigating IL should be dismissed with no discussion of its merits at all. For example, Bancor’s single-sided AMM solution. Don’t even bother making any attempt to learn from them because clearly they don’t understand IL and are shady, correct?