There is only one perpetual contract, ETH-PERP, in MCDEX. I propose to discuss the issue about adding more Perpetuals:
- Is it a good time to add other Perpetual contracts? Does it harm the liquidity of ETH-PERP?
- What underlying assets should be added? BTC? LINK?
- What collateral should be used? DAI ? USDC? …
- Should liquidity mining incentivize the new contracts either?
Is it a good time to add other Perpetual contracts? Does it harm the liquidity of ETH-PERP?
It very well may - I would personally use the BTC contract more often if it was collateralized in stable coins. That might be a sentiment shared by others which would reduce the liquidity available on the ETH-Perp. However as @Ruru_Wars mentioned I think adding another incentive to the existing contract during the rollout of a BTC perp would help.
underlying assets should be added? BTC? LINK?
BTC and LINK sound like the best options right now. In future maybe also Synthetix token, and BAT. BAT has a somewhat special place in the DeFi sun these days, but I don’t know if it would attract enough trading for it to be worth your while to build it. BTC and LINK will both attract people right away. After that the Synthetix token is a good target (we used to have weeklies on this, which I traded often).
What collateral should be used? DAI ? USDC? …
Don’t use USDC! Everyone in DeFi should stop using it right away! https://cointelegraph.com/news/centre-freezes-ethereum-address-holding-100k-usdc
I was a big USDC guy until I saw this.
I vote DAI - a lot of people will say no-way to this due to the issues that happened during the large market crash a few months ago when DAI lost it’s peg. However - even though it did lose it’s peg for a while I think those instances will be rare - what would happen if you had about 1 Million USDC’s in collateralized positions, and Centre locks even 1/10th of those? I can see that causing a major issue, and it’s not going to resolve and get back to normal on it’s own over time, as DAI likely would. MKR token holders are like ‘lenders of last resort’ helping to cushion things. USDC can simply yank the rug out from under our feet whenever they want, and it wouldn’t be anything under the platforms control.
A question for @jie - is it possible for MCDEX to cushion DAI volatility? collateralize the orders with DAI but then if DAI’s peg flies off the handle, use a USD oracle to work liquidations/settlement? Say DAI jumps 5% off it’s peg, maybe you drop back to a chainlink or other oracle at that point. I guess you’d have to prevent new orders until things straightened out but platform could maybe handle liquidations with USD oracle during a DAI problem… is this possible?
Should liquidity mining incentivize the new contracts either?
I can’t quite figure out how that might hurt/help. my gut instinct is that you should also allow liq mining on any new contract that’s provided.
Yes, we could provide some contracts on Dai volatility. Maybe use the Market Protocol to provide a high leverage product, eg. 100x. The key is the Oracle and the settlement of Market Protocol. For example, ChainLink has a DAI/USD oracle, which has an accuracy of 0.5%. Maybe we could use some average price from curve 's on-chain data. The more the Oracle accurate, the high leverage we could use in Market Protocol.
Besides, we may use eUSD as collateral in the future?
The eUSD information: eUSD: A synthetic USD Token based on MCDEX ETH-PERP