- Discussions/
- #34/
@7M8j...YfMY We all agree that iBTC is a good decentralized option to bring btc to the omnipool, however at this point there doesn't seem to be enough capacity in the vaults to bring all the liquidity we need
That does not mean that we do not have conversations with their team, and later iBTC will be integrated
so it's only a matter of time before IBTC is integrated
I'd like to see GLMR and ASTR. I'm not super interested in seeing ETH and BTC via bridges. just an exploit away from wrecking more people in the eco. I'd prefer to wait on ETH until we get some more trustless bridging.
@Jose Crypto
This is my belief too, iBTC is actually great but:
- If the HydraDX protocol treasury had to issue it's own iBTC, then it requires Interlay vaults to have enough collateral to support the incoming $1.1mm BTC.
- I don't believe the liquidity is sufficient for HydraDX protocol treasury to be able to purchase $1.1mm iBTC without massive slippage if it was bought from a DEX.
Would love to be proven wrong here – I would love to have some significant amount of iBTC in the Omnipool eventually!
@7NfV...JhFv
The Moonbeam and Astar treasuries could actually add a % of their overall pot to the Omnipool themselves in a trustless manner :) Now that would be something to write home about
Waiting for XCMP. Adding KSM and RMRK. We can write to Bruno, after the sale lands of the Skybreach, he has a lot of RMRK in the treasury. Max supply 10ml, 0% inflation.
P.S. obvious:
Centrifuge (CFG)
Phala (PHA)
Cosmos (ATOM)
ThorChain (RUNE)
These are just thoughts. Stay hydrated.
Edited
I'm not confident looking at wBTC on Omnipool while we have iBTC eventho their liquidity is smol at the moment. But I don't mind wETH on Omnipool. wETH is important to attract outside users mainly from ETH community itself. My thoughts is simply making BTC unavailable at the moment, or just acquired a little amount of iBTC.
I would like to see bags of XCM astar moombeam or BSK and KSM, of course it is important to also bring liquidity of ETH which is more important I think
Thanks everyone for the engagement so far - I look forward to seeing even more in the coming days.
Note on the two themes I see emerging:
iBTC - there is not currently an abundant source of iBTC liquidity where we could use the DAI to swap for iBTC. Creating vaults and depositing native BTC would be extremely capitally inefficient. WBTC can be seen as a compromise to have the #1 most liquid asset in the pool, and eventually add iBTC in a stableswap subpool allowing curve-like low slippage swaps between the two.
dotsama altcoins - whilst we are keen to see all good dotsama assets in the omnipool, it is critical that this remains below 20% of total TVL to support LRNA stability. 40-50%in stables and 40-50% in major caps are key to this
Based on status after launch, it seems HDX POL is unnecessary in omnipool. There is overflowing demand from the community to provide HDX liquidity. Suggest letting the community LP while demand exists. Can reassess if HDX liquidity stops being capped.
I assume this goes without saying, but the top priority for attracting liquidity is fixing the bug preventing liquidity removals once cap has been reached.
Edited
@lolmcshizz
iBTC - there is not currently an abundant source of iBTC liquidity where we could use the DAI to swap for iBTC. Creating vaults and depositing native BTC would be extremely capitally inefficient. WBTC can be seen as a compromise to have the #1 most liquid asset in the pool, and eventually add iBTC in a stableswap subpool allowing curve-like low slippage swaps between the two.
You do not need to spin up a Vault for this, you can use existing capacity. There is ~24 BTC (est. 400k USD) capacity right now, though more can be made available (there was not much demand across Polkadot DEXes due to current macro, so there was no point for operators/LPs/partners to add more collateral).
You only need to get native BTC - happy to brainstorm a solution that would be most decentralized/would have least overhead (on-chain OTC perhaps).
iBTC has countless benefits over wBTC - especially a double-wrapped wBTC version. Contrary to wBTC, iBTC is:
- Decentralized and secured by collateral insurance (especially important for long-term holding as POL),
- Substrate native,
- Easy to mint/redeem for BTC without KYC (with renBTC being dead, there is no easy way to mint/redeem wBTC to BTC for retail users atm, unless going via Binance swap).
The Interlay team and community are keen and ready to help get iBTC to HydraDX and make sure there is sufficient liquidity and support.
Edited
@alexei thanks for taking the time to join our discussion! I'd certainly be interested in exploring options for sourcing native BTC as a route to getting iBTC as POL into the Omnipool, and based on comments in this discussion so far I feel as though the community would also be in support of this.
Currently our POL is held as DAI on Ethereum in a HydraDX Council-controlled 7/13 threshold Gnosis multisig
I agree, we should avoid birdged tokens in the pool... we should use only native tokens and Cosmos' tech should be utilised for that. Guys are bringing native tokens from other blockchains into Cosmos ecosystem so we should bring BTC/ETH etc from Cosmos
@alexei I really like hearing that, now I have a question
Is it advisable to bring all that liquidity through one or more vaults? What would be the benefit of one or the other? or is it just indifferent
I say this because since they are different vaults, they will have a different level of security in terms of collateral available
I hope my question is not too stupid haha
I prefer native options for the liquidty so iBTC seems like a great option for BTC in Polkadot ecosytem and will bring the liquidty that will benefit the entire ecosystem
From my point of view, bringing both WBTC and iBTC can generate volume for us, so that arbgs can work, also brign liquidity from Ethereum is good
However, more worrying is the fact of having a simple UI and secure bridge (no stuck funds please)
I believe that bridged tokens TVL needs to be reduced compared to native tokens, and also introduce more native tokens like LINK and KSM
I would like to see BAI which is an over collateralized stable that sits on Astar added.
its a simple native solution Thais just focused on being a stable coin.
I’d propose 225kDAI swapped to DOT & usrd to open a BAI vault on astrid dao.
@7LQZ...F7s6
It does not matter which Vaults you use for minting - all BTC locked is treated as a pool.
When you redeem, you pick (or let the UI automatically select) a specific Vaults for the redeem request. Based on the size of the redeem request, you might need to pick multiple Vaults (right now, this means multiple steps via the UI, but you can also use batchAll via Polkadot.js). If a Vault fails to perform the redeem, you can liquidate it and claims its collateral... or you try again with another Vault and charge a small penalty to the failed Vault.
So, tl;dr: in theory, Interlay would work with a single Vault - the security is economic and depends on the locked collateral. Now, of course, more and diverse Vaults are better for a reliable service and high uptime (in terms of successful iBTC->BTC redeems) because in the end, we actually want to get BTC out, not recover the collateral.
Hope this makes sense! You can read up more here: https://docs.interlay.io/#/getting-started/interbtc
Edited
@xBits unfortunately there is still not KSM - DOT bridge, therefore kusama is not an option at the moment, nor are the assets in its ecosystem
but I would agree to have a higher tvl in native assets
@7NfV...JhFv Could you share some useful links for this? what is its mcap, is it adopted as the stablecoin of Astar? who audits ? this can help to the comunnity to see the value that BAI can add to the omnipool, thanks
As in the case of iBTC, it would not be convenient in terms of capital efficiency to create the vault and place collateral, because for example to put 100k, we would use 150k $ of other assets, in case that the collateral ratio were 150%
@lolmcshizz
We've been brainstorming some options.
The best option would be if you can somehow get native BTC -> then you can simply mint iBTC using the existing capacity and avoid the issue of insufficient iBTC liquidity on existing DEXes (I heard Hydra fixes this ;) ).
I'm not 100% aware of the restrictions you have in terms of swapping DAI -> BTC. Options that come to mind:
- Use a CEX to swap DAI -> BTC, then mint iBTC (probably does not work)
- Swap DAI for wBTC, redeem wBTC for BTC directly to the iBTC Vault mint address(es) on Bitcoin -> mint iBTC. Problem here: you can't really redeem wBTC for BTC without KYC/AML I think, which might be tricky for a DAO. We know some wBTC vendors and can explore if this can work. (maybe works, but likely similar issues as CEX)
- Swap DAI for BTC on Thorchain -> withdraw BTC to mint iBTC (Link to DAI-BTC pair). Will hit some slippage so will have to be in tranches. (should work)
- Use crypto-to-crypto off-ramps like Sideshift.ai ([link to dai-btc pair]https://sideshift.ai/dai/btc) but (a) these may be less secure and (b) might need to use multiple different ones due to lack of liquidity. (probably works but painful)
Alternatives:
- OTC deal with some LP that is happy to mint iBTC and swap on-chain against DAI (might work)
tl;dr.
Thorchain DAI-BTC swap + iBTC mint or on-chain OTC swap seem like the most viable options at first glance. There may be more options, this is just a quick first brain-dump
Edited
@Jose Crypto
You do not need to run a Vault to mint iBTC. You can just use the existing iBTC minitng capacity: https://app.interlay.io/bridge?tab=issue.
FYI, "iBTC minting capacity" = the amount of iBTC that can be securely minted to make sure that it is insured by at least X% (e.g. 155% for DOT) collateral, where X is always greater than 100%.
Vault operators run nodes, secure BTC, and lock collateral to insure users against (their own) failure.
BTC minters are a separate user group - of course, a Vault can also be a BTC minter but that is optional.
@alexei Yes, exactly, the possibility of the vault, came out as there was not the necessary liquidity, so we were going to provide the necessary capacity
That was the possibility that was seen when not seeing enough capacity, however, as you now comment, that the same vaults can increase the capacity when they see that we will make use of it, so go for it, this will benefit Interlay, HydraDX, and the whole Polkado Ecosystem
What's the reason to take additional bridging and centralization risk by diversifying into wormholes wBTC instead of using the Polkadot-native iBTC from Interlay?
I think that, in general, especially due to the design of Hydras Omnipool, it would be prudent to not rely on any bridged tokens to avoid complete drainage of the pool in case wormhole gets exploited again. Protocols that relied heavily on bridged tokens (Moonwell, Stellarswap, Beamswap, etc.) got hit very heavy by the exploits and are having a hard time to recover. In my opinion those risks should be avoided wherever possible. And in the case of wBTC there is a good alternative. It may still be small in terms of TVL but with the recent events in CeFi we can expect to see more and more users and funds flowing from centralized solutions to those that are more decentralized and trustless.