- Discussions/
- #215/
Sounds good though my preference would be to focus the $1 million on SOL exclusively otherwise liquidity will be pretty low relative to similar assets such as BTC and ETH. Another option could be to weight allocations a bit more by market cap, say $600k, $300k, $100k for example.
The future is multichain, so I generally support these diversification steps. Breaking Omnipool asset correlation is a very important step too.
However, a few important questions remain:
- SOL as a target for the sUSDS & sUSDe Yield DCA: If you're referring to the Hydration Yield DCA feature, wouldn't we need sUSDS and sUSDe in the Omnipool for this to work? Where would that liquidity come from?
- AAVE: Regarding the relatively large $400k allocation for AAVE buys and the plan to implement automatic AAVE buybacks from the Money Market fees to build AAVE POL and Omnipool liquidity over time — I'd like to understand more about the intended alignment between AAVE and Hydration. Is the reasoning behind this purely because Hydration is utilizing an AAVE fork?
- Incentives for bootstrapping new Omnipool assets: Since we're using Moonbeam Routed Liquidity, are there any options to engage Moonbeam or Wormhole to incentivize the bootstrapping of these new assets in the Omnipool? Maybe also to get W into the Omnipool?
- What about Snowbridge? I'm not sure how to think about this yet, but what about Snowbridge?
agree
I hope our brothers Hyperbridge and Snowbridge in the trenches can work harder.
If SOL came in the omnipool ,I think it would be a disaster.
Take a look at the fake users accounts and endless malfunction shut down, it will definitely go crash some day.If such a dirty and scam project that is full of lies and speculation merged into the liquidity, all the other ethical tokens would be harmed.
So I argue that SOL should never be imported.
All for ecosystem diversification, but thoughts -
I see what you're saying about moonbeam routed, but am uneasy adding insecure assets to the omni pool, as it opens us up to risk. It seems to me we should have some minimum security standards when listing tokens. Would like to see what happens with hyperbridge first.
Sol as far as I know can't support secure bridging, so it's nixed in my mind. But definitely interested in aave and sui.
Myself I'm against adding SOL in long term, for the reasons people expressed above. If possible only for short terms until hype lasts and after to remove before it will collapse then yes. AAve and SUI will be welcome to attract some users from their ecosystem to increase liquidity. I would prefer to see INJ then SOL on hydration.
I think hydration has to lead DOT ecosystem and reunite all weak parachains together as one force and do marketing together as one, not separate. Lots os mistakes has been done and DOT name suffered and continues suffering. Everyone must forget whatever happened in the past and sit down at the table and discuss how to recover.
A big no if you wish to add additional tokens from a non-trustless bridge in the omnipool. Unless you can convince me that Wormhole is any different from classic bridges, I think it would be a big mistake to make the survival of the whole omnipool concept so dependent on a single non-trustless bridge. There are already enough if not too many bridged assets from Wormhole in this omnipool now.
I lost a significant amount of money (for me) in the Nomad hack and I don't want to see that happening again. Having a large amount of non-trustlessly-bridged tokens in the omnipool is a guarantee that Hydra will die in the event of a bridge exploit or hack (which is unfortunately a very common event). It would be a shame to kill such a great concept because of a bad choice that relies on a bridge too much. Whether it is AAVE, SOL or any other does not matter to me. You'd have my full support for more native tokens from the DOT ecosystem in the omnipool, as well as other non-native ones coming from a trustless bridge. For a reasonable buyback of HDX, why not, it would not be absurd that HDX holders would sligtly profit from the increasing treasury.
I’m strongly in favor of moving ahead with adding SOL, AAVE, and SUI, as I believe this will attract attention and drive traction for both Hydration and Polkadot. With the right incentives, we could offer competitive APRs, making Polkadot account creation and investment in Hydration worthwhile for many.
I fully understand the concerns around Wormhole, but I believe this is a risk worth taking. According to WormholeScan, more than $400 million has been routed from Solana in the past 90 days alone, and over $600 million from SUI, etc.
In my view, it’s better to risk a potential $1 million loss than to miss out on testing new liquidity routes and connections with well-established chains that some might like or not.
While it is true that there is a risk of bridge, I think we should go beyond our ecosystem and for now, Wormhole is more battle tested than snowbridge (it is only for Ethereum) or other options like hyperbridge
However, adding this million (which will initially be less)
would only increase our Wormhole risk by 1% more, in comparison it is not much, however it seems to me that the risk is worth it to try to attract more eyes outside the ecosystem
The idea is not only adding them, but create some activity around them to boost more the products, like be available on the lending ( and due the scarcity, will create better aprs (maybe?) We will see
Fully in favor and much needed to add external bluechips, when money market gets released.
Edited