What do you guys think about bringing Yearn Finance to Polkadot? I know that some projects considering to move to xDai chain due to high transaction fees. But if we really want to build the best Yield Optimizers with other Yearn products we can’t just rely on smart contracts. Smart contracts have limitations. Why don’t we just build a Parachain on Polkadot. Yearn Finance could become 1 layer blockchain specifically tailored for cross-chain yield optimization. I know that many of you are ETH maximalists but the full implementation of ETH 2.0 is years away. Plus, ETH 2.0 is planed as a homogeneous system there Polkadot is heterogeneous. And you can’t really build a long lasting product that solves specific problems on a general purpose software (Ethereum).With Polkadot, Yearn Finance can have seamless upgradability, interoperability and customization. And, Gavin is the one who’s created EVM and Solidily. Let me know your thoughts.
Why build an L2 (parachain) on Polkadot when we could build one on Eth? Polkadot has 0 assets. Eth has billions…
To de-risk the project, for one
I don’t get it…Polkadot literally has 0 adopted DeFi protocols/applications on it…why build on a ghost town? Look at what Uniswap and Synthetix are doing with their L2 solutions…if we want to talk about becoming an L2, that’s the direction we should head
I recommend you to try the Polkadot interface and look at the projects that are soon to be released and have already fully working products like Acala and Laminar. This is the equivalent of Maker, Synthetix, Uniswap: almost ready to go live. What is more, you will directly (not immediately but in a foreseeable future) be able to use Metamask on Polkadot, simply because Polkadot understands ETH. Just check it out if you are interested. If not, also fine. Disregarding options just because without being fully informed does not seem the right approach for a project that wants to be “the best of the best”. Ever had a look at what is developed in Polkadot?
Yes, very familiar with those projects! As you hinted, they don’t have any value stored in them…we should think of blockchains as ‘value networks’…a blockchain that holds no value is of no use to us, despite whether it’s technically sound or not (there are a lot of technically sound blockchains other than Ethereum)…
Parachains cost money, you must stake DOTs.
App-specific chains are a bad idea generally and the worst idea for yEarn specifically, because yEarn derives its value from all the underlying DeFi products it optimizes over. Without them co-existing with it on the same chain, it’s literally useless.
Imagine yEarn is running on a parachain today. Where is paraCompound, paraAave, paraMaker … etc? Without them, yEarn is just a sleeping WASM blob.
I would say we should be liquidity maximalists. The onus is on other chains to bootstrap liquidity and/or create liquid bridges to Ethereum before yEarn goes to the trouble of catering to them. This applies to DeFi products that move to an L2 rollup as well.
An L2 chain or Polkadot/NEAR/Cosmos etc must:
- creates robust and highly secured bridges bonded on Ethereum, so that when they misbehave we users can litigate them to the EVM, slash them, and withdraw.
- attracts sufficiently large number of DeFi Legos
before it makes sense for yEarn to go to the trouble of re-compiling the contracts to these destinations and deploying them.
This is irrelevant. There are pro’s and con’s to both. It is actually better for new chains like Polkadot to be heterogeneous, because they exist on a different point on the decentralization-vs-security-vs-throughput trilemma. ETH2.0 aims to support 16k+ validators, and that puts a cap to how much throughput each shard can possibly have, so that the network as a whole can keep up and punish any misbehavior before the next finalization point. This is by design, because the choice has been made to maximize decentralization and security.
Polkadot, on the other hand, has currently 100s of validator, and will probably scale up to a few thousands. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just they are not aiming for maximum decentralization at the maximum security possible. They sacrifice a little bit of both for high-throughput.
Notice, however, that “heterogeneity” can easily exist in the ETH2.0 world as well, in the form of heterogeneous rollup chains that commit to a shard.
I think that migrating to dot, as many people said, is not a strong consideration at this time. There are no defi transactions there. yfi. Doesnt charge a lot of gas, the protocols it interacts with do, and so long as those protocols (the ones with yeild) aren’t migrating, there is little reason to move the base overt there. I assume the gas for dot to interact with eth mainnet must be the same if not more than what is currently happening via you interacting with ETH directly.
However, all it requires is convincing a coder to build there so it shouldn’t be dismissed completely. I certainly can’t even code a switch to turn off my lights so this is just talking via assumptions.
As someone who strongly believes in Ren and cross-chain becoming the norm, I actually view YFI as becoming the (cross-chain) yield aggregator of the future. Ren’s bridge between Ethereum and Polkadot is coming online soon (among other bridges to Binance Smart Chain and Cosmos), and there will almost certainly be yield opportunities on Polkadot, especially when assets from Ethereum can move freely over to Polkadot and back. YFI can eat that cake when it becomes available, even if it takes some time deploying contracts on Polkadot, since YFI have some of the best smart-contract devs. Ethereum will still be the home base of operation, since governance only needs to be on a single chain anyway.
Actually, you you can think of Parachains as L1 because Polkadot is L0 (Meta protocol). Ethereum will be bridged to Polkadot in the near future as well as Bitcoin (ChainX, Ren Protocol, Interlay are working on it). Once interoperability is fully functional we will see liquidity migration. Ethereum is just the first implementation of WEB3 vision. Google wasn’t the first search engine and yet it’s the most dominant one right now.
Polkadot is not a ghost town. Hundreds of projects are literally building on top of it. And to move to Polkadot from Ethereum is not a zero sum game. Many Ethereum projects will eventually move to ETH 2.0. But ETH 2.0 and ETH 1.0 are totally different projects. The only thing they have in common is the name. Prove me wrong. So why build on L2 if you can build on L0? Plus, as far as I know Aave and Balancer are already looking into migrating to Near Protocol. And yEarn uses both at the moment.
Agree. But the the VALUE can freely move cross-chain once interoperability issue is solved.
What makes you think that Parachains are isolated and that they can only communicate with other Parachains?
Imagine Compound is on Loopring, Aave is on xDai, Maker is on Near Protocol, Synthetix is on Matic, Uniswap is on Omise? What a mess.
DOT community is here to support great projects. And yEarn is one of them
I just spent the last several days researching Polkadot. Here are some general thoughts:
Polkadot has a disruptive technology. There are going to be technologies built on Polkadot simply because they cannot be built anywhere else. Imagine building Google on AOL.com, or Facebook on MSN Network, or Ethereum on Bitcoin; it won’t work as the technology isn’t there. The future growth of blockchain infrastructure demands interoperable, scaling, parallel, and customizable blockchains.
An example with Netflix. When Netflix entered online streaming, they needed data centers specific to their needs. They did not want to build the data centers from scratch, but the data centers that were available were not able to handle Netflix’s demands as a customer. Netflix switched to and runs on AWS (Amazon Web Service) because they demanded their own customized solutions while having access to AWS’s entire ecosystem in one platform.
Polkadot is the AWS of blockchain. There are going to be many enterprise-level Netflix’s out there that will find that only a customizable blockchain will suit their needs. They won’t care how many dapps, legos, or developers are on Ethereum, if the Solidity protocol can’t satisfy their needs then none of that matters. Yearn Finance needs to have some exposure to Polkadot.
Yes, Temp. Few understand… “Polkadot is Linux for building blockchains” Dr. Gavin Wood.
I think the point @yfi_lit is bringing here is not about how good a tech is (there is a shit ton of promising blockchain projects), but that DeFi (one of the first real world use case of blockchain) adopted Ethereum for now and that’s where the people, the capital and user’s energy is.
I am not convinced that any project necessarly needs to front-run on building on another chain. Why not just waiting to see if adoption occurs on another chain, and then only build on that other chain ?
yes exactly. we’re here to optimize yield/maximize returns for those who hold money…if Polkadot can play a role in that, we’ll build on Polkadot…but right now there is 0 reason to spend any time on Polkadot other than reading about it
That’s why I said the onus is on these chains to bootstrap a secure liquidity bridge, whether they exist as rollups (pegged to Ethereum) or prachain (pegged to Polkadot) or shards (pegged to NEAR) etc.
I will definitely be in support of this if REN nodes are accountable to the EVM, currently they’re not. Also the market cap of REN must be larger that the total market value of bridged assets (all the ren[XXX] assets).
Im a fan of Polkadot design and implementation as well. As I said once they bootstrap sufficient home liquidity and secure bridge exist, it will make sense for yEarn to tap into it.
Agree with this 100%. But eventually, it’s good to look at options outside of ethereum.