Thanks for championing this AZ - great stuff. You know my position a big yes from me. It’s about giving users options, especially for these large cap assets.
2 Likes
I agree with your points Arcturus, however we should start with renBTC as it’s the best of the lot. We can build a direct BTC deposit interface via RenVM Bridge as well as accept renBTC directly. Rather not give more support to wBTC if we can help it with a superior solution.
Love it @uhmpeps.
Minor point: My only concern is that “best” seems a bit vague no? Best in what way/how we do define that? If we want to say that best means the most DeFI support then wBTC is best as you can currently deposit wBTC on Compound, Maker, and AAVE. This gives us flexibility w.r.t yield farming strategies if there are better opportunities around. Granted CREAM.finance offers renBTC and I expect the other projects to follow suit. Either way though I don’t really mind since we will eventually have all these vaults anyway.
Assuming we should have a vote here too just to be sure we have community go-ahead for both vault and strategy?
To round it up YIP MVP is:
- Create renBTC vault
- Create renPool Curve strategy for renBTC vault using 7 day(?) CRV rewards to reach 2.5x boost and increase gauge weight proportional to the volume deposited. (I haven’t looked at the yCRV strategy but it can be copied to start to keep things simple)
3?) Investigate if @jiecut’s suggestion is possible.
For those curious around vote boosting created by @DeFinnTheFarmer:
1 Like
@Arcturus I think renBTC/wBTC LPtokens will work better then an individual wBTC or renBTC vault. The exchange rate can vary quite a bit, impermanent loss, makes more sense to deposit the LP token. Unless, you don’t plan on investing into curve.
Doesn’t really make sense to deposit a BTC vault onto curve because of impermanent loss. This is why the single currency yVaults don’t deposit into yCRV.
1 Like
To expand on my other comment. I was talking about Vote Locked tokens and the 2.5x boost. Not regarding, guage-weight voting.
So if you have 10% of veCRV (vote-locked CRV), you can get a 2.5x boost on 10% of yCRV liquidity, and also a 2.5x boost on 10% of renCRV liquidity. Basically you get a 2.5x boost for up to 10% of liquidity on every single guage.
So it’s just a no brainer to not just stake yCRV liquidity tokens. You might as well get a 2.5x boost for the other guages too.
The only problem is the strategy implementation which might be complicated.
1 Like
Yeah I understand that, and I have no hesitations either for having an LP vault. My concern was tightly coupling the vault so that in the future the strategy could not be so easily switched. My inclination was to offer two vaults renBTC and wBTC and allow users to decide themselves essentially just abstracting away the Curve.fi UI from the process but essentially doing the same but all from one address (to take advantage of gas subsidies and vote boosting but still keeping the wbtc and renBTC separate). Nevertheless I’m not opposed to the LP vault either due to slippage in theory. That said, I would imagine the strategy would constantly rebalance using it’s rewards for the more favorable side of the trade with least slippage/more bonus (Ren or wbtc). My other thought re: slippage is what difference does it make for someone going on Curve and depositing their renBTC vs doing it from a Curve vault? Either way they would experience slippage no?
As for the voting I see what you mean now, yeah that vote boost would be ideal, if it’s via address would that mean yCRV would have to share the same rewards address as the BTC LP vault? I haven’t checked to see how it currently functions but if it’s shared then that should be easier. However if it isn’t it seems like increased risk for the yCRV vault unless we figure out some delegation mechanism. This raises an interesting question, should each vault manage its own rewards or if they should be collectively part of Yearn Rewards treasury/ies for similar boosting on other platforms.
So, it seems that this proposal has been put forward as YIP 39. Honestly, while I like the basic idea of this proposal, I do think it was moved forward to a YIP without adequate further discussion and fleshing out here or on Discord.
@uhmpeps I’m glad that we ultimately will be adding tokenized BTC to the vaults, but this feels incredibly forced. I think the most obvious places we can see this are errors in the YIP itself– there’s an entire paragraph that is just copy-pasted from YIP 38 and has no relevance to this YIP at all. Errors like this seem to me like the governance process isn’t being taken seriously:
However, the amount of $BAL seized is 3 times lower than protocol fees generated within a week (18k vs 60k). Therefore, I propose to keep $BALs in the multisig and count them towards operational capital, rather than writing a custom claim contract – this solution saves time and gas.
Furthermore, in the proposal it is mentioned that this would be similar to both the yCRV and yYFI vault. The strategies of these two vaults are vastly different, and the vaults are fundamentally different as well (one holds a normal ERC20 in YFI, while the other holds an LP token). Realistically, I think this strategy would be identical to only the yCRV vault– this is the current strategy that farms CRV and dumps it back.
Upon receipt and sale of CRV on market, system buys either more LP-token if liquidity/pools are available, or buys renBTC or sBTC
Here, the strategy again seems to not be fully developed. Realistically, we would want to buy whatever is going to incur the least slippage– wBTC, renBTC, or sBTC. I’m not sure why you’ve left wBTC out here. People can say they don’t like it because it’s custodial, but ultimately by using the Curve sBTC pool LP tokens, we are holding ~40% wBTC. While sBTC would be ideal since we get a ~1% bonus for depositing right now since it’s so low in the pool, there would also be slippage with relatively large amounts of sBTC.
Ensure the new yVault is communicated to the appropriate audiences as a viable alternative to holding a non functional pet rock with no other purpose currently.
Again, like with the other proposal, I think it would be best to keep these more professional– these are effectively the laws of our DAO, and will be looked back upon in the future, so I think it would be best to just be as clear as possible and keep opinions or jokes out of it.
Perhaps my last issue is that there is no mention of the REN/SNX/BAL rewards for the sBTC pool. While these are likely to end this upcoming Friday, it would be good for them to at least be mentioned, as we should have a plan in place for what to do with them should we receive any in the future.
Ultimately, I’m just frustrated, because these are all minor issues that would’ve been solved if you had just slowed down a bit or had someone like myself or @Arcturus look over the YIP before submission. We’ve been active in giving feedback up until this point, and I know we would’ve been happy to proofread it or work through the actual YIP before submission.
2 Likes
I didn’t make the YIP! I wrote this up as a YIP-39 without realizing I’m not supposed to entitle it as a YIP, to be clear.
After @vany365 pointed out it shouldn’t have YIP in the title yet, I changed it yesterday. So… I’m not familiar with the formalized YIP-39 at all.
I didn’t even know someone made the formal YIP until someone else mentioned it to me earlier today. I still don’t know what’s happening with it. Just been working on the UX
1 Like
Ah– then apologies– it appears someone else submitted it in your name.
All of my points still stand, and perhaps this becomes a bit sillier if others are submitting YIPs in the name of someone else…
1 Like
You’re right and I agree with all your points, any way we can find out who made/submitted that YIP?
1 Like
I’ll make a new post bringing attention to it and see what the mods say
2 Likes