Algorithmic stable coin protocols & in particular elastic supply tokens (e.g. AMPL, Base) have emerged as contenders for decentralized price-stable assets. The premise of such tokens is to convert price-volatility into supply-volatility, in search of a price peg (e.g. 1 USD)
$DEBASE - A Composable/Modular Algorithmic Stable Coin Protocol
https://t.co/v3383S9VsP
https://t.co/mAul2JSyWE
A guest post, written by the Debase community.
Algorithmic stable coin protocols & in particular elastic supply tokens (e.g. AMPL, Base) have emerged as contenders for decentralized price-stable assets. The premise of such tokens is to convert price-volatility into supply-volatility, in search of a price peg (e.g. 1 USD)
The idea is that at sufficiently large market capitalisations supply-volatility will taper off and you are left with a price-stable asset. So far this has not been the case
Projects like Ampleforth continue to experience sustained price and supply volatility even as market capitalisation has ballooned. Subsequent iterations have tried to improve on this model by modifying one or more of the static parameters; BASE, RMPL etc., come to mind
While the subsequent iterations modified a fixed set of ‘flexible’ parameters, the fundamental mechanism of elastic supply tokens remains static. Debase is the first elastic supply token to introduce completely dynamic parameters (16+).
Debase is the most dynamic algorithmic stable coin:
1. A composable and modular protocol
2. Infinite iteration and experimentation, virtually any DeFi composition is possible, mediated through Debase’s in-built gov. layer
3. Over 16 dynamic parameters
4. Composability w/ a wide range of DeFi elements appeals to the full spectrum of stakeholders in the DeFi ecosystem, including but not limited to yield farmers, options traders, other stable coins/DeFi projects who can build "stabilizer pools".
5. Stabilizer pools (s-pools)
S-pools act as plugins that add additional logic/function, to stabilize $DEBASE, to the core protocol. Ecosystem participants are incentivized to coordinate & ensure Debase gravitates to a peg. It is only limited by smart contract capability & what governance permits
Given the infinitely modular nature of Debase, It can absorb innovative new ideas in its stride as it evolves and matures. S-pools with various, unique strategies will sit on a spectrum of passive to active designs
Passive S-pools:
These do not have an active agent of stabilization, and rely on pure game theory to stabilize supply (and therefore price).
For example, a S-pool that rewards stakers with $DEBASE if there are less than 'n' number of negative rebases over m time periods
Active S-pools:
These have an active agent of stabilization, for example a S-pool that acts as a yield vault. This vault may take $DEBASE/DAI LP tokens or assets as capital, use a yield farming strategy and set aside part of the profits to peg $DEBASE to its target price
S-pools will exist on a spectrum between the two extreme types of pools (active and passive).
Debase needs to attract as many diverse strategists as possible - to this end it is already working on onboarding these stakeholders to governance e.g. 88MPH - governance partner.
How can all the active/passive S-pools coordinate to stabilise $DEBASE, despite their varied interests? Aligned incentives. Debase’s incentive structure enables governance ($DEGOV) to share protocol profits in DAI/other assets in treasury when $DEBASE is stable
Governance plays an important role in growth & stabilization. Because governance can be rewarded for driving utility, governance partners are incentivised to ulitilize Debase as a stable reserve. Large DeFi protocols, once onboarded to governance, can push for stable utility
More from Crypto
You May Also Like
1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?
A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:
Next level tactic when closing a sale, candidate, or investment:
— Erik Torenberg (@eriktorenberg) February 27, 2018
Ask: \u201cWhat needs to be true for you to be all in?\u201d
You'll usually get an explicit answer that you might not get otherwise. It also holds them accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to
- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal
3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:
Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.
Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.
4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?
To get clarity.
You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.
It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.
5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”
Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
