MakerDAO Community Collateral Onboarding, 8 Dec 2020

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: Community Collateral Onboarding Call: December 8, 2020

Description

Introduction: @juanjuan
Presentation 1 (0:00:44): B.Protocol
Presentation 2 (0:45:47): Wrapped Filecoin

Agenda and Discussion:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/collateral-onboarding-call-19-b-protocol-wfil-network-tuesday-december-8th-19-00-utc/5503

Governance Forum:
https://forum.makerdao.com/

Disclaimer: These calls and the summaries are produced and hosted by MakerDAO community members. Content produced by the community are not the statements or views of the Maker Foundation.

A

Hi, everyone welcome to another maker collateral call um for anything that has to do with the well die supply in this case, sometimes demand, but mostly supply. Today, I'm joined by uh be protocol, so yaron and ayton are going to to be covering a little bit more. uh What they've been covering on on other course and in the forum and for those that want to stay a little bit after this call, uh we have nas uh from whitefield.network, that's going to explain his own his own project later uh so yeah without further ado here on.

A

If you want to.

B

Yeah yeah, so thank you for having me and yeah. This course is okay, so technically it's collateral, onboarding, and so this is like the technical term, uh but the scope is a bit bigger here. We actually suggest that b protocol will be a backstop for a new collateral time.

B

uh So it's not big protocol, it's a token or some kind of collateral, but we want to backstop a standard collateral type. uh So maybe first quick introduction about myself. uh Some ceo of the protocol before that I was cto of kaido network uh in my old cto, was involved. A lot with on-chain liquidity market making and trading uh also was involved in kyber in the wrapped bitcoin initiative before kaiba, and actually I started my crypto career in a kind of a research project.

B

Smart pool was a decentralized smart contract that was the decentralized mining pool first decentralized mining pool in ethereum. I started it doing my academic research paging computer science about this call, so I will try to make it brave because I think you know I did present most of it in the forum and everything.

B

uh First of all, I will you know, chill a bit and be protocol on what we are doing now and now we are actually working with eth collateral, but in a very different way. So I will share the status on that.

B

uh Then I will, you know, give kind of a quick but general overview on how dfi liquidations are currently being done as opposed to centralized or traditional world liquidations and how big protocols take the advantages of both worlds.

B

And then I will review the actual proposal that we want to make to make a dao on the new collateral uh yeah. So first of all protocol the current state. So right now we are on mainnet.

B

We work only on the east, a collateral.

B

We have our own website where we offer alternative interface to users, and then users can either import the maker.vault to us or open a new maker.vault with our interface.

B

We have like a thin layer of smart contract that does some tailoring uh of uh you know sorry redirect the user uh from our smart contract to maker dao, but eventually all the funds and everything are in a maker down vault, an user that interacts with us implicitly gives us a priority in the liquidation process and in return you get to share the proceeds of the liquidation. So right now the java actually has 20 000 u.s dollars, so part of them are profits, part of them and we seeded the smart contact with some ether.

B

Initially, we already have uh 18 million dollars of deposits, four million dollars of debt, uh most of it are from people who simply import uh their vault to us, and now the architecture designing saturated users get exactly the same conditions, meaning exactly the same liquidation condition and okay, also the same fees, etc.

B

Stability fees. uh So what is actually happening is that user interact with our smart contract, but under the hood we just redirect him to make it our platform and then in order to be able to offer exactly the same liquidation conditions, meaning exactly the same collateral factor.

B

uh So we provide a question to his account or to his world, meaning that if his debt in mecca dao is a hundred dollars and then we repay at certain point- let's say ten dollars of this debt and then make her now a vote system say it has a smaller debt and we will not liquidate it uh when the price changes, because according to make it out system, it is still over collateralized debt. While, according to our system, we do not take the cushion into account it's under collateralized and then our liquidators will liquidate it.

B

So they liquidate it without any water from the other maker dog keepers, and they will share some of the some of the process which, which is currently half of the premium, and they will put it in a gel and then eventually, this jar is distributed among all users uh who participated, uh and you know there is a scroll metric according to the debt over time, etc.

B

uh This liquidation pool is composed currently from three uh liquidators to already completed the integration and maybe okay, so some statistics, so we're live for over a month almost a month and a half uh over. So we have 138 volts that was either opened or imported from maker, dow users to us.

B

uh On the last thursday of november. We already did a re-liquidation as opposed to some test liquidations. We previously did so 70 000, die or liquidated.

B

The liquidation uh was precisely according to the price feed minus the maker, dow standard liquidation. This is opposed to the auction process you have on recorder, which usually ends up below the price feed, uh and also this is quite an immediate process, not six hour long process.

B

uh We have three three big defy traders who committed for integration. Two of them already live in the integration. Third, one will join this month.

B

uh So this is the current status, and what is important to understand here is that the liquidators are incentivized by giving priority, but their commitment here is soft as opposed to what we propose now, so they get a big premium, so you know they have big incentive to liquidate, and this premium is considered quite big for traders.

B

They have very big trading system and market making system in defy, so they have a lot of liquidity which is already on chain and then, when we just offer them okay, you can take this with a discount. They don't need to build a system for hedging and bringing capital because they already have it.

B

But that said, they are not really or they were not actually two out of the three and never participated in liquidations prior to b protocol, from the reason that they didn't want to compete with the rest of the world, which is mostly about gas, optimizations phone running systems, etc.

B

And so this is what we have now. uh What we propose is to have even something more committed, uh but first let me give you some background on liquidations uh in the real world and then in defy so in the real world. If you're a bit max- or you know, even on bigger scale, on the big real world exchange, you, you have a backstop which is basically a committed liquidators which, in the real world they are called like albuterolators.

B

Which are committed to liquidate in times of extreme market conditions, so the liquidators put some capital inside the trading system. Let's say in bitmex uh in the platform commits that when they need they will allow them to liquidate with some discount and actually okay, so they commit on doing it. So they when liquidation is needed. They don't really ask them. Okay, is it convenient for you to liquidate?

B

They just dump the position on them so position here, meaning that a user has its debt as its collateral, so they just hand over the debt and the collateral to the liquidator and yeah.

A

Another question: uh maybe the the rest, got it because they're probably much smarter than me, but I was wondering how um b protocol interacts with maker. As is it something um like defy saver that it as an algorithm it saves or it tries to not get liquidated or is it more uh like it goes, or it replaces a bit the the keepers. What we call mechanical.

B

So yeah so like for you as a as an end user, uh it's not really like a default server. Not at all. It will not save you from liquidation.

B

uh It will give you exactly the same liquidation conditions as maker dao, but for you currently, as a user, you will get a proceed sharing. Okay, so you get exactly the same condition as maker now, but you get to share the liquidation profits of other users right. So if other users get liquidated, you get to share it, our liquidators right, so their incentive is, you know they have big trading system, so they they just.

B

They are there for the discount and they.

A

B

To settle for a lower discount because they don't have to compete with the rest of the world.

A

Okay, so, instead of if I won't die instead of taking it to maker directly, I would put them in b protocol and then I would share liquidation.

C

A

B

The trade yeah so yeah you will do directly from b protocol. You will interact with b protocol exactly in the same way as uh as you did with others, app, for example, but yeah. But in addition you get this user rating, which is actually also voting lights later for the upgrade, and you get to share the process yeah. uh But this is kind of the background and it's kind of you know like the background for our proposal: it's not the new proposal. Okay, so this system is already live.

B

uh You know we got great feedback and get great reaction from the make it out community, but in essence this is really a permissionless integration beside maybe some price feed the white listing all right, so the there was nothing need to be done for makers outside and here what we propose is actually to take it to the next step. Okay, do something uh jointly with maker dao, which is more native, and so this was just a background, and maybe you know some advertisement to our current product, uh yeah.

B

Okay, so back to backstop, okay backstop is actually liquidations in the real world. So let's say I'm a backstop on in bitmex, I put let's say: half a million dollar dell er recorded in in bit mix. I can have x hundred leverage, so it you know if you look up to a position, a few uh hundreds of million, even you know, maybe 50 million dollars.

B

Then when there's under collateralized position, they simply move to me the debt and the collateral of the under collateralized position, and then it is my responsibility as a backstop to rebalance my position and if I fail to do it, then I get liquidated myself and if I do get liquidated, what I lost is the capital or deposit deposits. I put beforehand right because if I get liquidated, I lose everything.

B

So this is a traditional finance and you know like the key message here is that you have committed traders with some committed, quantifiable guarantee that they will liquidate. I mean no one asked them, basically, just saw them. uh On the other hand, the platform gave them some commitment they that, okay, you are the liquidators. No one else is if we move to the centralized finance world, so here you know so make it uh first of all make it now.

B

1.0 liquidation system will be different than 2.0 and both are different from compound and cream and other etc. But but the juices is relatively the same. So in the core of defy liquidations is that you let everyone participate and by.

C

B

Everyone participate. Typically, it means, like you know, just let's throw this order to the market, so indeed you don't have a global order book, but letting everyone participate simply means okay, let's throw it to the market. uh The traders from their side of the liquidators, so they're not committed to anything, because everyone can do it.

B

If market conditions are too extreme, there's no incentive to participate. I will just stay out uh also because I'm not committed, I will mostly you know, do it when I can arbitrage the transaction emit the trade or the liquidation immediately with uniswap.

B

I will spend most of my development efforts in front running other liquidators in gas optimizations in deploying ethereum nodes all over the world, researching the network topology, as opposed to increasing my ability to handle big positions with hedging hedging, my positions in all over the world, not only in unisport also in centralized venues etc.

B

So this is the outcome of no commitment. I do everything that it only. What is easy. The discount here is shared with the miners, because, no matter how you spin it it's first cell first.

D

B

Mean the first one liquidates takes takes it all, usually or take porsche inside, but there is an advantage to the first movers.

B

So now, if I have a few dollars profit, I might be willing to share a big part of it with the miners now u.s maker. Now again you don't really care if the miners will get it or the liquidators. But as a result, you know big big players are reluctant to participate uh because, although the premium is potentially big a lot of it go to the miners not to the liquidators and finally, okay, because there's no commitment, you don't have to pre-register or anything.

B

So we cannot dump the position on liquidators they liquidate only if it's convenient okay and then the outcome right is something like black sales day. Actually, you know all the incentives were there, but but what was missing is an incentive to actually build a system that that will use these incentives. Right I mean: if someone gives you free eater, then surely you will take it, but the problem was that no one constructed a system to handle such scenarios etc, or maybe no one beside one person who took everything.

B

uh So that's that okay, so we have the decentralized finance which is permission is transparent, but without any commitment and we have the centralized one which has commitment but is lacking transparency, and in like transparency, for example, uh you know so if we take bit mix as the crypto gold standard, so you know in the real world: it's probably a relatively weak system.

B

No one knows actually how much backstop they have. No one knows how how much big bit max is safe, uh as opposed you know, to the real world, bigger venues outside crypto, but but still you know, if you compare bitmex to differ right now they can handle tens of millions in liquidations.

B

uh Well defy is far from it.

B

So if you combine bosworth and we have big protocol, so our motto is to let everyone participate, so it is permissionless, uh but it is permissionless in the sense that anyone can join as liquidator, but liquidators are selected for a certain time period and when they are selected, there's no competition among them because they are selected. They are committed, and in a few minutes I will show the proposal so in the proposal, there's even a bigger commitment where they look capital upfront, uh okay, in b protocol.

B

What we have now is that the discount is shared with the users and not the miners, but actually you know in our proposal for native integration, I mean there are no users. The users are maker, though so over time they might be willing to have a lower discount, but more, more importantly, here is that they might be willing to secure higher leverage ratios, which is desirable for landing platforms uh and and finally, okay, so liquidators are committed now and not liquidate only if it's convenient to them.

B

Okay. So now this was all a background and now, let's dive into the actual proposal.

B

So this is an actual proposal, but more of you know like a call for discussion uh on the parameters and what maker dao really wants, etc.

B

uh So, let me tell you, you know what a ssb protocol, but also us, as you know, people who are working very close with the on-chain market makers know their needs, etc. So what we want and what you know we ask in return. So what we give is a system to incentivize committed, liquidators and also to bootstrap it with a committed backstop. So backstop is a set of liquidators uh again, and it is important to say here that you know we don't offer. I mean we usb protocol me as your own.

B

Even they can't liquidate all sites. So what we offer is a protocol and to bootstrap it protocol is incentive. We don't know you know it's not something that you can say. Okay, two years from now, uh we'll have the same liquidators.

B

It's not that big protocol we'll wake up at night uh to save, make it out from liquidations.

B

It's just an alternative liquidation system which we believe is more robust or at least worth experimenting uh which gives give incentives and then by bootstrapping. It is you know, so we actually have the opportunity to showcase it and then pave the wall, the road you know, so it's actually profitable or maybe not, uh but but you know to actually kind of fund this experiment, the development of everything.

B

So this is what we offer. What we ask for maker now is that opposed to what we do now, which is you know like alternative website users, get to choose whether you want to use us or make it directly. So we want to have a to back a popular, a liquid collateral type for this.

B

For the sake of the example, you know proposed up bitcoin, but it could be ease, it could be other good tokens uh and you want to have a lot of users uh in it and in order to have a lot of users in it, so you know what we see is the good way to do. It is to offer better collateral ratio and the same phase is an existing one.

B

Okay, so wbtcb in this example, we wanted to have better collateral ratio than wbtca and we wanted to have the same stability feed that maker dao takes on wbtca and then the choice for the user.

B

You know it's no brainer, I mean he will always prefer this collateral type, of course, until it hits certain ceiling uh which will be introduced for security and for the sake of experiments.

B

This collateral type and, of course, the built-in priority in liquidations for b protocol.

D

Yeah, well maybe it's worth mentioning that you know. um Basically, having you know, uh a lower collateralized ratio is basically helping. You know, whatever users are looking for higher leverage, you know for the funds, um so this is something that can be offered basically by the protocol, because we feel you know comfortable that with the backstop. This is actually being enabled, uh basically for the first time in defy uh in general, um to get you know, 10x on your funds.

B

Maybe you know like, for the sake of example, or it's up to discussion, but but yeah, so it's it's higher leverage or, if you're more in the stability front- and you know getting only 130 or 120 collateral ratio for wbtcp as opposed to 150, even if the user is risk adverse, it's always better for him to use that so yeah. Yes, so it's actually bringing yeah so yeah I mean it.

B

It creates a real value for maker, dow users in that sense, which in turn, you know expected to increase diet, circulation, etc, yeah, okay, so again in the forum- and this is up to discussion, so we proposed a wbtc- is a collateral with the same fees as wbtca, which are currently four percent, uh and it's important to emphasize the stability fees still going to make your dao to us.

B

We will you know brave, and you know we want to offer a collateral ratio of 110 which actually allows you x, 11 or x, 10 leverage for the user uh and to start with some initial cap on the amount of debt. So you know, like a failure here, will have only a limited effect on the make it our system, so we offered five million die as the initial ceiling for the debt.

B

uh If that will happen, uh so we will propose that liquidators will lock up a for upfront. Half a million dollar actually probably die, and then ever a new position is thrown at them.

B

They will have to repay from this half million dollar a part of the user debt.

B

uh Every liquidator will have its own vault uh and once their work becomes under collateralized, then it's again up to the maker dow keepers to liquidate them so b protocol is, you know, like a font like the first layer in the liquidations.

B

Liquidators have a lot of a lot on stake in order to make sure the liquidations are successful, but still the ultimate backstop is keeper maker down.

B

Okay, what we ask is okay: it will require changes in the smart contract, but changes that are specific for this collateral type. The flipper meaning no change in the other core components and everything will be limited uh contained by the wbtc b, a collateral.

B

This change in smart contract will implement the position, throwing that will just move the position to our liquidators.

B

uh We do ask for 10 liquidation premium and we do ask and okay. This was a question raised on the forum, so I ideally if there is a liquidation that is not handled by maker, dow keep uh keeper sorry bye, yeah make it out keepers, then. Ideally, we would ask that there will be no liquidation penalty uh if maker dao still wants to have a liquidation penalty either way.

B

Even though liquidations that are managed by us uh do not add any risk right to the system, then we would ask that eventually, the penalty for the user will not be bigger than wbtca, which will still mean that okay, w btcb dominates in every aspect wbtca and will be the default uh go-to collateral for the user, at least until the ceiling is reached and then depends on the actual collateral ratio.

B

If you go to all the way to 10x, then maybe updating the price only once an hour is too infrequent and you will have to use the.

C

B

Time, oracle for that or maybe updates every few minutes, and so this is what we ask and allegedly okay. So the proposal is very concrete, but you know it's the the beginning of the discussion and what we really want to discuss you know was assuming uh this is something maker dao really wants to move forward with is that you know, let's discuss the details later, let's start with the basic things you know, let's see, first, if maker dao really is at all interested in such approach.

B

uh So for that, it's important to understand that you know so there were some discussions about ensuring the liquidation with nexus mutual. So here we do not offer insurance there's. No. There is no mathematical guarantee that if liquidation process fails, then we will compensate and make a da in any way, actually there's no compensation.

B

Everything we promise is only that they are incentivized liquidators with something on stake. So initially it will be half a million dollar incentive for a five million dollar a market crap and then, as we grow as we make it bigger, we can further discuss.

B

You know what kind of requirements are needed uh if market goes down catastrophically, you know all the way to zero. Again, we are not magicians, so these people, you know, can trade big volumes with half percent premium and for them you know, 10 percent is typically fine.

B

uh You know just uh you know, so it makes other places. Premiums are much lower and this and these guys, the default traders constantly quote bitcoin prices for barely half a percent, a markup.

A

B

Platforms such as kyber, 0x, etc, but still, if the worst would happen, they will not be able to dump it, they will get liquidated themselves, they will lose half a million dollar but also make it our system. We lose okay. So it's not an insurance.

B

uh So this is what we offer in terms of mega dow. Is it really making the um desire or wish to kind of so it's either outsourcing or maybe experimenting or introducing a new liquidation process uh to me even figuring this out? How we actually can figure it out whether it's a signal or a pole or whatever?

B

So this is to me, like the main question, whether it's something really maker that wants so the small part is giving up part of liquidation penalty, which is to my understanding, really not at the core uh of maker now of mkr token model. But it's something you know should be considered a.

B

Moreover, you know it should be considered eventually, so we will bootstrap everything, but eventually conditions.

A

B

Requirements, uh liquidation premiums should be attractive to liquidators.

B

So, even though we might subsidize everything initially for the long run, liquidators and the backstop are there to make money if there's no real opportunity for them to make money, because capital requirements are too high, etc, and so you know this collateral type will have to be shut down right for the long run, uh yeah. Okay, another indication is okay. What kind of collateral you guys want? We are fine with this wbtc other stable coins.

B

If there are liquidations there currently, usdc is not available for liquidations uh also for the collateral factor, so we offered something very aggressive, uh because you know we see it as a added value for the user or like a selling point to make it out.

B

Basically, we believe that, even without it we are like a better, we could help make make it now more stable and maybe you know like the big positions, etc, should be first tried out in platforms like ave or cream finance or whatever. So it's also up to you. If you want, I mean, if you see like the big uh contribution by supporting uh better leverage or simply by supporting uh or by enabling a higher stability.

B

uh And finally, you know we are fine, we starting with five million dollar ceiling, but you know for the long run. We would like you know like to set a process on how to.

C

B

It it seems that five, so you know just to give an example at this point, our backstop, it has four million dollars of debt that it backstop without any capital lock on its side right. So for the long run, staying in this five million dollar value is not very attractive.

B

So here again, the intention is to start small, obviously test the system uh but to scale into bigger values during the long run so yeah. This is basically what we want to discuss, and this is the end of my presentation.

B

C

Aaron um hypothetically, if the maker community uh does not want to do a 110 liquidation ratio and they do something more like 125, just guessing um and also debt ceiling of two and a half million, and again I'm just speculating. How would that affect your protocol and the ability to implement this.

B

Yeah so far from implementation inside you know it's simply a matter of uh changing parameters that that's not the issue. The the issue is you know that eventually this should be profitable or attractive to liquidators. So, as an initial experiment, you know everything is done in good faith, etc. We can decide yeah I mean. Probably we will be up for lower ceiling.

B

uh Actually increasing the collateral is actually better for us. Even uh it makes us safer as well, so that that's up to the maker of the city you know like if they want to have this buzzword or selling point of x 10, but but if you make it our community decide so, okay, maybe to summarize 125 percent collateral value. It's definitely not an issue for us.

B

A lower ceiling again to start with could be okay, as long as you know, like there's a clear road map on you know what will be the events that will allow increasing it, etc.

D

I I would add that you know, because there is, you know certain amount of development needed. You know to implement such uh such a solution. um We do want to get some kind of a signal from the make it out community. You know from the dao to actually you know having this, as you know, as a test bed for with a good intention. You know if everything goes right and you know with the right direction to actually you know scale it uh as your own mention so um yeah. We we don't want to do that.

D

You know. Just you know, for um and and starting with too low uh ceiling might be. You know just not enough to actually test it really.

C

Okay, yeah yeah and um you're circling back to implementations. um uh I believe there will be some adjustments that needs to be done to the current code. Is that right.

B

Yeah yeah, so adjustment will be in the form of changing the flip, meaning that changes will not affect uh will not affect the other collateral types but yeah, that's right. I mean there will be a change required in the liquidation process, but again it will be isolated to this collateral type.

C

Got it and uh I mean yesterday, I know you were on the call for the um the crop joint and uh one of the things that lab said that we should ask is about the liquidations 2.0.

B

Yeah, okay, so so, on the face of it, uh this proposal is kind of agnostic uh to the liquidation system. So basically, where liquidations you know, will keep her down and make a double liquidation kicks in is if I'll keep our liquidators become insolvent, and then your keepers get to liquidate them and.

D

B

You can choose, you know to liquidate them. The way you want- and I imagine that, if liquidation to always live, they will be liquidated.

B

We still, oh, I think, maybe what level meant on higher level is that, whether this system or this you know eventually we claim this is an improvement to the current situation, whether it is still needed, even in the presence of liquidation to oh, uh so our position is definitely I mean opposition.

B

uh Also, for I mean me, is there a guy who wrote some boats for the liquidation, 1.0.

B

So that that was terrible for liquidators and toro is definitely better uh but said it does not solve the inherent uh defy problem of okay. If you let anyone liquidate, then everyone will just liquidate what is easy for them. You don't get real stability this way.

B

In the long run, you will not be able to offer high leverage because, okay, it could work nicely if you give 50 uh over collateralized.

B

But you know if you want a only five percent in the future over collateral, even ten percent, uh then you know. For let's say: if you want five percent, then even million dollars liquidation. It might be hard to arbitrage these days on uniswork.

B

uh Definitely not five million dollars, ten million dollars, so 10 million dollars might still be okay. If you offer ten percent or fifty percent of the collateral, but surely again, maybe not make it but like as a defect ecosystem that will aim to offer higher leverage and compete in the centralized venues.

B

The vision should be towards higher uh leverage, so in that sense, yeah, okay, so liquidation tool is an improvement. In my opinion, uh still it doesn't make the situation better than compound ave and creamy dead sense, and we believe that you know these systems also uh benefit from approaches. So so I don't see it as you know it make our proposal redundant.

B

In that sense,.

C

Yeah, I agree. I think that uh even if liquidations 2.0 is picture, perfect you're still going to need people like b protocols. I totally.

A

C

um Yeah, thank you.

B

C

Might be a tad too early for this kind of source.

C

Because the the liquidations 2.0 has been been going on for months and asking them to change anything now, it's going to be hard.

C

C

Wait no liquidations to work out and implemented and maybe try a soft approach uh going to the uh the business development.

D

Team and not directly the community.

C

To the business development team and try to have a kind of a minimal proposal for us.

B

Yeah, okay, if I got that question correctly so, first of all in terms of liquidation to all so it does not really conflict.

B

It does not conflict with the development efforts there uh and again, as I said, this is actually you know we will integrate with what every liquidation system that will be ready uh and when and the changes in the flipper contract, uh which will simply you know, will be isolated to wbtcb and for this experiment, uh so you know clearly we'll get in touch already in touch with the technical team and see you know regarding exact timelines, uh but on the face of it, it doesn't seems to be related.

B

I mean we can even go live with the first. You know it's the 1.0 and then move to 2.0 seamlessly for the right approach, whether it should go via the foundation. So actually, here I'm interested in your feedback.

B

uh We got a bit of a different feedback from the foundation that these kinds of things should mainly go through the dao, also for some, maybe legal reasons and others. But here you know definitely you know. This is like a call for discussion called for uh to see how to move it forward.

D

B

D

The um one of the feedbacks or maybe guidelines that we would be very happy to understand from the community is, is basically you know how to take these kind of proposals. You know forward with the dao like what would be the right, um the right path, you know, within the of the bureaucracy kind of you know, of the dao how to move that forward. um What kind of you know what kind of steps are are needed so.

A

Yeah, echoing a bit what planet x was saying, uh the domain teams are possibly overworked, but there's an important backlog in general, uh so we were actually thinking about maintaining the the mips uh and every other development in in a request for comments phase for a little bit longer, uh but but what you're raising aaron is very, very valid. um These are questions that uh that could be.

B

Potentially asked.

A

To the community.

B

Maybe also you know like to give some context and everything I mean this will not happen next week. Right I mean this is a process and yeah I mean I mean I mean so in that sense you know.

C

B

Will eventually have to er er to weigh, I mean very likely, liquidation to all will be live before all the details here are sorted etc. Right, I mean also, we will take most of the development work, of course, and the audience in terms of the actual uh you know time or you know, week or months or whatever to going live so yeah I mean this is still a long time ahead. I mean.

B

Currently we mostly want to kick off the discussion here uh to see you know, even because this will take weeks, maybe even months from outside right. So so it's mainly discussion level to see if from our side, you know we should start with maker now or with other platforms in this kind of integration.

A

A

Any any other questions for the protocol team.

C

I just want to say thank you for for addressing kind of everything on the forum that was really great and uh definitely.

C

A

B

Thank you for the question and yeah. Thank you for having me.

A

um Okay, so so yeah for those that want to stay a little bit longer uh nas the floor is here, so we get to know more a little bit about.

A

We feel I don't know how you feel.

E

Okay, hi everyone I'll just share my screen. I need, uh I think we probably will need to stop sharing.

B

Yes, I paused it. How do I one second.

E

Yeah: okay: stop stop yeah; okay,.

B

E

Thank you. Okay,.

E

So can you see my screen.

E

C

E

C

E

Okay, thank you, hi. Everyone uh really excited to be here. I'm nat, zareno, co-founder of w field labs, an open source, r d and deployment laboratory. Our mission is bridging filecoin to ethereum to bootstrap the adoption and development of falcon within ethereum and the phi ecosystem, unleashing the next generation of storage and financial application.

E

We are a fully distributed company, I'm currently based in london and christian, is based in barcelona. We are building uh rap filecoin, uh the first file coinbra token on ethereum.

E

The problem we are addressing is bridging file code and ethereum. The challenge here is to provide a service that is as decentralized as possible, maintaining the back stability of the token one to one with filecom value and allow file coin holders to access liquidity or exchange file coin on ethereum via defy services.

E

So we propose a w field. An erc 20 wrapper over five coin, backed by fico deposits on a custodial uh custodian uh to be used by file coin holders, storage, clients or storage miners on ethereum uh landing platform like maker dao as collateral to get dye or other compound to get liquidity that can be used to earn interest or provided to liquidity, pools like unit swap curve and so on.

E

uh The technology we are using include a near c20 token implemented using open, zeppelin, erc20 library, sorry, uh erc20 library, that's controlled by a factory contracts that allow merchants to add mint board requests that need to be confirmed by custodians to keep the token pack stable with filecoin.

E

Both contracts are managed, and here we can probably see a better, a better picture of the architecture. Both contracts are managed by w phil dao agnosis, safe multi-c contract that allow members in the case of maker dao could be a community representative of the dao to approve upgrades of the factory contract, as well as add, remove merchants and custodians, providing trust and transparency for the community.

E

We recently have migrated the back end to open zeppelin defender for secure operations uh to interact with the contract, providing an extra layer of security that will allow merchants and custodians to easily interact with the factory contract via adoc apis and also allow the dao for decentralized security operation when upgrading the factory contract or add, remove merchants custodians via the defender dashboard.

E

Future developments could include a governor contracts that will replace the w field, dow with a governance contract and also with allowing, with a governance token, the community to participate and vote for proposal, with, of course, incentives and to onboard down members. The onboarding of the members and merchant custodian will be totally transparent and will be done uh on on twitter, showing the transaction of uh diagnosis, safe contract.

E

That will also be setting the confirmation threshold accordingly, as well as for merchant custodians when they are added to the factory by the the dao.

E

The project uh rock falcon. The project was born uh during akfs by eth global, on an idea proposed by juan, where we released the first prototype on ethereum coven july 26th.

E

After after that, the project was being uh selected for apollo by bitcoin, where we, where it has been awarded for best protocol breach by textile and also joined the falcon space race uh via textile uh power gates, and after that uh we joined ath online as well, uh where we celebrated the file coin. Liftoff the minute launch currently uh wp lab uh is one of the companies in the file coin launch pad accelerator powered by takion consensus.

E

We recently launched uh last week uh the token on minutes, the 3rd of december as the first lego piece as the first lego piece, and we are currently completing the audit with one stamp of the factory contract will be launched very soon on minutes.

E

Next steps uh will include onboarding, merchants and custodian, and we are currently formalizing fuel partnership and also we are working with textile team to bring ethereum users uh the possibility to use w fuel to buy storage directly on filecoin and use it to build ups on uh ethereum, and also we are defining the roadmap for next year.

E

That will include research and development and implementation of non-custodial version by leveraging on filecoin smart contracts in phase that, finally, we will explore opportunities for storage and defy applications on top of filecoin to unleash the next generation of storage and financial application.

E

The team is formed by me, co-founder c, ceo and smart contract engineer and christian da silva co-founder, cto and blockchain engineer. We met at consensus academy during the blockchain developer, bootcamp and act together during rfs at each global academ, where the project was born. We share a common passion for defy and we've been following emerging technologies in the space during recent years and falcon was one of the project that most excited us as it exploits the potential of ipfs filling a gap in the space by adding a new layer of complexity.

E

Thank you and uh you can. uh You can follow us on twitter at bradfield or check our website stay tuned for updates at wp.network, and also we recently created a bitcoin grant uh for round eight thanks.

A

Nice, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for.

C

For nas yeah cool, um thank you nas for that presentation, so I so I guess uh I guess I can start by saying that you guys are at the same company as rap, which is, uh I believe, by tokensoft anchorage and somebody else, but ray. Is that correct.

E

No, we are wp labs, a company currently on uh falcon launchpad accelerator uh from consensus.

C

Okay got it, um so you guys are going to use the same symbol on this because I think rap is using wfil. I guess you're going to use the same symbol or how do we? How are people going to determine which one is which.

E

Sure um yeah, we are currently checking that, but, as I mentioned on the application, we would like to open a discussion on the differences on the arc of the solutions, uh especially focusing on the architecture and security of uh the two uh erc20 and uh like um allowing the community to uh to like um open the discussion and um and yeah uh for that. As I said that we are currently uh checking. So uh we can give more information soon.

E

C

The wall and uh circling back to uh you mentioned something about a dow. uh I quite I didn't quite understand it. So if you could give me like the simple explanation, um the dow, what's what's the vision there.

E

Sure um both contracts, uh the factory and the esc, 20, are controlled by a multisig, so we use the gnosis safe contract where currently we are on me and christian, the cto, and we will on board down members soon and the this is.

E

This will allow to uh decentralize uh as much as possible um w field uh without giving access uh to an external loan account or and and give like a trust, a transparent uh transparency to the community for each like for upgrades like if we need to upgrade the factory contract, you will see that on on ethereum, as well as uh if a merchant or a custodian is added to the factory you, you will be able to see that, and these need to go through a threshold of confirmations of the dow members.

E

So it's not just me or christian, that can decide if to upgrade the factory or to add merchants arbitrarily, but will be more funding. Member are there more decentralized will be uh the token and as a base, as the current architecture will allow to like upgrade the system, and instead of this multiseek could allow an another contract, a governor to extend the governance to a broader community via governance, token that will directly get access to adding a new mintern.

E

So upgrading the factory or adding or removing merchants or custodians via proposal.

C

Got it and I think um community member planet xo was having issues with his microphone is asking if you have any insurance of your rap fill a wfi.

E

Sure uh so we we currently uh are on boarding merchants, so each merchants will have its own custodian and the custodian will provide insurance for the file coin deposited uh and as well as uh we will launch our own merchant service, and we are currently formalized partnership with custodians as well. That will provide um insurance for for the five coin deposits.

C

Cool. Thank you.

A

Thanks also ozone, as he asked on the chat. uh Well, he said that formal verification of the of the rap thing is going to be important. So I guess I don't know if you want to comment on anybody.

E

Yeah we we discussed with the quan stamp uh to make a proposal uh for fightcoin on a form of verification, uh uh specifically for stablecoin, uh and we will uh probably open a discussion uh later on uh with publicly publicly on that. uh We currently uh discussing with one step. Actually it was at the beginning of the audit. We, we actually had this conversation uh because it's very important and they are recently added a stablecoin, formal verification audit, specifically for this kind of applications.

E

So we are really interested and we will uh start a discussion with the falcon foundation uh soon on.

A

That nice and regarding the token name, I don't know, if maybe frank you know about this, but I, how is this solved usually in in the wild like if two projects take the same ticker name? How? Because I don't think that discussion belongs in the maker forum for some reason, but maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. Is it a race to integrations or.

C

You mean, as far as yeah.

E

Sorry go ahead and ask I don't know it poses um issue to the integration actually, because you you can integrate uh different collateral but yeah. As I said, we can open. We are checking on that and we can open a discussion. uh Currently, we can open a discussion on the differences of the two solutions. I think that would be. um I would invite the community to do that and and wait for a response on the ticker site. Yeah.

A

Do you want to say something frank or or let something do that.

C

No, no, I I thought you were asking me what would happen if they both end up with the same ticker or the same token symbol uh wfil, uh I I wouldn't know, maybe uh maybe greg, might know, I think, he's on the call put him on the spot.

C

What's the question, what.

A

C

Happen if both protocols ended up with the same symbol, wfil from a maker perspective or just in general, just in general, uh it would probably be exchanged by exchange, so each exchange will decide what they really want to call it, and then honestly, probably none of them will call it wfil. If there's multiple contenders for that so yeah. It's honestly, I don't think it's that important, like they'll the venues and even maker dao will find a way to differentiate between the different products.

C

A

Great thanks rick does anyone have any any other question from us.

A

Right so we can call it a day or an evening regarding which part you are thanks. Everyone for coming! Thank you jaron and nathan uh from v protocol thanks nas from w field network. um It was very nice having you guys and uh yeah. Let's keep the discussions going on in the forum tomorrow. We'll have a melon protocol. Someone else is going to to present melon protocol. So if you guys want to join me in the agenda in the forum, as always, have a nice one thanks.

D