►
From YouTube: Collateral Onboarding Call #29: Bancor - April 7, 2021
Description
Collateral Onboarding Call #29: Bancor
Intro by @JuanJuan
Bancor by @markrichardson
Agenda and Discussion:
https://forum.makerdao.com/t/collateral-onboarding-call-29-bancor-wednesday-april-7-18-00-utc/7054
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,
dao
collateral
call.
This
is
number
29
today
is
april.
The
7th
2021st
at
6
00
p.m,
utc
and
I'm
very
happy
to
have
a
banker
and
a
new
team
with
with
us.
I'm
also
joined
by
a
bunch
of
enthusiasts
about
well
of
maker
and
yeah
happy
to
to
have
you
guys
here
mark.
Do
you
want
to
tell
us
a
bit
who
you
are
and
your
role
in
in
bancor.
B
B
Most
notably,
I
was
working
closely
with
er
herzog
on
a
flexible
credit
system
that
we
now
call
the
bank
or
vortex,
which
has
been
a
long
time
rolling
out,
but
we've
just
finished
the
the
final
stages
of
everything
that
we
needed
to
get
that
off
the
ground
this
week
and
that
should
all
be
coming
together
pretty
soon.
So
I'm
now
a
full-time
consultant
with
with
the
bancor
foundation,
and
I
helped
to
analyze
and
advise
on
financial
and
economic
problems
that
the
protocol
could
face
going
forward.
B
Of
course
yeah,
so
bancor
is
an
automatic
market
maker.
It
is.
It
was
actually
one
of
the
the
first
market
makers
on
on
ethereum.
It
is
it's
gone
through
several
iterations,
so
the
first
version
of
itself
was
was
pretty
simple,
very
similar
to
something
like
unisof
or
sushi,
swap,
except
that
the
bnt
token
takes
the
place
of
if
of
ether
as
the
base
token
across
all
of
the
pools.
B
Since
then,
it's
been
through
two
major
upgrades.
The
first
was
what
we
called
bangkok
version
two
and
this
introduced
chain
link
oracles
and
a
dynamic
weight
system
to
try
and
address
impermanent
loss,
but
it
turned
out.
This
was
was
not
a
sustainable
way
to
to
address
the
problem,
and
so
bancor
version
2.1
introduced
a
dynamic
token
supply
as
a
a
more
elegant
way.
I
think
a
more
permanent,
more
sustainable
way
of
addressing
the
problem
with
a
permanent
loss.
B
The
liquidity
pair
and
so
liquidity
providers
on
bancor
have
this
amazing
ability
to
to
have
manage
their
portfolio,
essentially
in
exactly
the
way
that
they
want
to,
rather
than
being
forced
to
sell
some
of
their
token
to
buy
ether
to
to
become
an
lp
and
the
protocol.
Insures
them
against
this
market
effect
called
impermanent
loss,
which
is
something
that
occurs
when
the
the
price
of
two
assets
start
to
deviate.
But
I
talk
about.
B
B
The
the
first
is
going
to
be
sort
of
an
introduction
to
the
bank,
auto
economics
and
the
protocol
how
it
works,
but
then
I've
also
I'm
going
to
iterate
certain
parts
of
it
that
I
think
are
explicitly
of
interest
to
maker
and
should
help
to
justify
my
bank
or
the
b
t
token.
It
should
be
accepted
collateral.
B
So
I
find
it
helps
sometimes
to
in
explaining
some
of
these
concepts
to
personify
certain
elements
of
of
the
process,
and
so
I'm
going
to
use
characters
from
the
matte
graining
universe
and
and
bender
in
this
case-
represents
the
bankroll
vertical
and
so
bender
has
two
main
powers
when
it
comes
to
the
b
and
t
token
itself-
and
that
is
he
can
create
tokens
when
needed,
and
he
can
also
burn
these
tokens
when
they're
no
longer
needed,
and
so
this
makes
the
bnt
token
itself
an
elastic
token
it.
It
has.
B
B
B
But
we're
going
to
address
the
impermanent
loss
part
slightly
later
in
the
presentation,
so
after
tony
has
provided
that
liquidity-
a
bancor
enthusiast
in
this
case,
personified
by
martin
from
the
simpsons
he
can
come
along
and
then
decide
that
the
maker,
the
maker
pool,
is
highly
performant.
It's
maybe
earning
some
good
fees,
and
so,
when
martin
provides
his
bnt
token,
the
protocol
withdraws
the
token
that
it
minted
to
support
tony
martin's
token
goes
into
the
pool
and
then
the
protocols
tokens
are
burned
in
that
process.
B
What's
interesting,
is
that,
depending
on
when
the
protocol
is
doing
this,
this
can
actually
be
a
deflationary
event.
So
if
it's
just
me,
if
it's
just
burning
all
of
the
tokens
that
it
minted
in
the
first
place,
then
this
is
a
zero-sum
game.
However,
if
there's
been
some
trading
on
the
pool
leading
up
to
this
point,
then
it's
actually
possible
that
the
the
pool
tokens
are
worth
more.
B
At
this
point
and
when
the
b
t
tokens
are
burned
during
this
process,
then
then
some
of
the
b
and
t
that
have
been
absorbed
out
of
the
secondary
market
actually
gets
stuck
onto
the
supply
and
gets
burned
in
the
process.
So
this
is
one
of
the
ways
that
the
protocol
can
contract
the
token
supply
when
it
needs
to
the
other
thing
that
the
elastic
supply
allows
bancor
to
achieve
is
impermanent
loss
insurance,
and
this
is
really
important.
B
So,
let's
come
back
to
the
example
where
tony
is
providing
maker
tokens
and
the
protocol
is
providing
b.
T
tokens
the
same
setup
because
before
they
both
contribute
each
token
to
the
pool
and
we're
now
going
to
think
of
the
two
things
that
can
happen.
One
is
that
the
price
of
b
and
t
during
the
time
that
the
liquidity
pool
is
established
rises
relative
to
to
maker
and
for
the
sake
of
this
demonstration,
we're
just
going
to
forget
about
trading
fees.
However,
this
is
you
know,
obviously
a
gross
oversimplification.
B
B
There's
going
to
be
a
slightly
less
than
there
was,
if
we're
considering
a
situation
where
there's
no
trading
and
so
no
fees.
But
for
the
sake
of
this
hypothetical,
how
the
protocol
would
reimburse
tony
for
his
loss
is.
It
can
still
mint
more
b
t
tokens,
and
so
he
can
calculate
exactly
what
tony's
loss
was
and
whatever
trading
fees
he
should
be
entitled
to,
and
then
it
gives
all
of
that
value
back
to
tony
at
the
time
that
he
withdraws
tony
then
you
know
has
slightly
less
maker
tokens
in
this
particular
example.
B
But
he's
got
the
same
value
that
he
would
have
had
in
maker
tokens
substituted
by
b
t
and
because
b
t
is
such
a
highly
liquid
resource
and
it's
accepted
on
all
major
exchanges.
It's
very
easy
for
tony
to
trade,
those
bnts
to
get
back
the
maker
tokens
that
he
wanted.
It's
possible
that
we
can
automate
something
like
this
in
the
future.
But
at
the
moment
this
this
part
is
still
manual.
A
B
B
One
is
the
vortex
and
I'm
going
to
explain
that
in
in
just
a
few
moments,
but
what
I
should
point
out
is
that,
since
v
2.1
has
launched
the
the
price
of
bnt
has
gone,
something
like
20x,
not
quite
20x,
and
that
means
that
the
the
protocol
is
now
extremely
well
hedged
right.
It
has
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
linked
tokens
in
usd
stable
coins
in
ethereum,
wrapped
bitcoin.
B
So
at
the
moment
the
protocol
is
very
much
in
the
position
where
it
can
cover
all
of
the
impermanent
loss
of
token
liquidity
providers,
in
the
token
that
they
provided.
So
there
is
no
situation
right
now
where,
if
a
a
maker
liquidity
provider,
for
example,
would
drill
liquidity
that
they
wouldn't
receive
everything
back
in
in
maker
tokens.
So
that's
really
good.
B
B
Yeah
I
mean
we
can
return
to
these
questions
at
the
end
of
the
presentation.
If
you
like,
I
feel
like
once
we
get
through
all
of
the
slides.
There's
going
to
be
like
a
lot
of
stuff
will
be
answered
on
the
way,
but
if
there's
something
that
you
feel
like
wasn't
satisfactorily
covered,
I
can
easily
engage
you
in
further
discussion.
B
Okay,
so
yeah
okay.
So
what
we
need
to
appreciate
about
tony's
position
here
is
that
he
has
effectively
bought
from
the
protocol
by
providing
liquidity,
an
american
perpetual
option.
It's
an
american
option
in
the
sense
that
it
can
be
claimed
at
any
point
before
its
maturity
and
it's
a
perpetual
option,
because
it
has
no
expiry
date.
B
When
we
are
evaluating
the
value
right
of
of
that
option,
we
only
need
to
consider
how
much
impermanent
loss
tony
has
suffered,
because
that's
the
the
value
that
he's
getting
back
from
the
protocol
right.
This
is
the
cost
of
the
protocol
and
there's
a
fairly
easy
way
to
to
calculate
that.
In
this
case,
p
is
the
price
of
the
token
when
he's
choosing
to
withdraw
it,
and
p0
was
the
price
when
he
deposited
it,
and
so
we're
not
going
to
get
into
the
derivation
of
this.
B
B
So
if
we
reverse
this
situation
and
look
at
it
from
the
protocols
perspective,
the
value
that
the
protocol
is
losing
is
growing
in
the
square
root
of
time,
but
the
fees
because
it's
sharing
the
fees
with
tony
that's
also
growing
in
linear
time.
So
you
can
run
various
models
on
this
to
see
where
the
break-even
point
is
before
the
the
fees
owned
by
the
protocol
actually
overshoot.
B
B
B
B
Let's
just
run
through
this
quickly,
because
something
interesting
happened
here
that
I
think
is
easy
to
miss.
Let's
say
that
you
start
with
100
in
bnt
by
the
end
of
this
process,
you
still
have
your
100
of
bnt
staked
in
the
contract,
but
you
have
received
100
in
ethereum
during
this
two-hop
swap
process.
B
In
this
particular
instance,
the
bb
t
has
been
sold
for
ethereum
and
so
he's
completely
unable
to
access
that
stake.
Bnt,
and
so
the
bnt
is
kind
of
serving
like
a
collateral
system
against
the
the
ethereum
that
that
he's
taken
away
from
the
protocol,
so
the
bnt
remains
locked
in
the
contract
until
he
comes
back
for
it
when
he
comes
back
for
it,
it's
a
relatively
simple
process,
just
to
reverse
those
steps.
B
The
ethereum
can
be
swapped
back
for
bnt
and
then
the
bnt
can
be
traded
back
for
v,
b
and
c,
and
then
with
that
v
dmt,
that's
the
key
to
the
lock
and
you
can
unlock
the
stake
being
bnt
and
remove
yourself
from
the
protocol
and
so
we're
calling
this
a
leveraged
liquidity
system.
But
what's
interesting
about
it,
is
that
there's
it
replaces
things
like
insurance
rates
and
and
sorry
interest
rates
and
margin
calls
with
a
simple
bonding
curve
mechanic
that
helps
to
limit
how
much
leverage
is
actually
available.
B
So
consider
the
situation
where
we
start
the
vb
t
b,
t
pool
at
a
one
to
one
rate,
so
this
means
that
the
the
price
of
v
b
t
is
equal
to
the
price
of
b
t
as
liquidity
providers
enter
into
leverage.
That's
actually
going
to
force
the
price
of
v
b
and
t
down
relative
to
b
and
t,
and
that
makes
it
less
less
desirable
to
enter
into
a
leveraged
position.
B
This
is
where
the
protocol
comes
back
in
and
introduces
the
deflationary
part
of
the
bank
called
vortex,
a
small
amount
of
swap
revenue
from
the
protocol.
At
the
moment,
it's
five
percent,
so
it's
negligible
really
from
the
liquidity.
Provider's
point
of
view
is
used
to
purchase
vbnt
back
from
that
vb
tv,
vnt
pool
and
burn
it.
So
this
means
that
vbnt
is
constantly
leaving
the
leaving.
The
system
right
is
is
never
coming
back
and
some
of
the
bnt
that
is
staking
the
protocol
can
never
be
unstaked.
B
B
It's
possible
unlikely.
It's
still
possible
that
during
extremely
performant
periods
in
in
the
protocol's
future
that
it
might
actually
burn,
b,
b,
t
at
such
a
rate
that
it
overshoots
the
peg
and
the
price
of
vbnt
becomes
worth
more
than
than
a
single
bnt
does,
and
this
opens
up
a
potential
arbitrage
opportunity
for
someone
like
like
mr
burns.
B
So
in
this
case
our
arbitrage
represented
by
mr
burns.
He
started
with
100
of
bnt
and
was
able
to
swap
that
for
110
dollars
worth
worth
of
eth
via
this
arbitrage
situation
that
he
that
he
noticed
what's
interesting,
though,
is
that
he
may
not
ever
have
an
incentive
to
come
back
for
that.
Bmt
he's
already
made
his
profit
and
so
that
bnt
that
he
staked
in
the
network
is
probably
going
to
be
locked
forever
when
he
does.
This
he's
only
incentivized
to
do
it
until
the
price
is
is
back
to
one
to
one.
B
So
at
the
moment
we
have
a
very
large
number
of
different
tokens
on
the
protocol
and
all
of
them
are
paired
with
bnt.
So
I
think
at
the
time
of
this
presentation,
we've
got
about
1.7
billion
dollars
in
in
liquidity
and
half
of
that
is
in
b
t
and
each
one
of
those
b.
T
tokens
is,
then,
you
know,
is
in
a
bonding
curve
environment
with
the
the
tokens
that
liquidity
providers
have
provided.
B
This
has
an
interesting
effect
of
turning
bnt
into
something
like
an
index
token.
So
if
you
consider
the
three
deepest
pools
on
our
network,
which
is
chain
link,
ethereum
and
wrapped
bitcoin,
which
have
about
350
to
400
million
dollars
worth
of
liquidity,
each
as
the
price
of
for
example,
bitcoin
is
changing
right,
let's
say
the
price
of
bitcoin
is
rising.
B
Then
the
an
arbitrager
will
buy
that
wrapped
bitcoin
off
of
the
pool
by
buying
bnt
of
the
open
market
and
then
swapping
it
on
that
pool
for
the
rack
bitcoin.
So
as
the
price
of
rat
bitcoin
goes
up,
it
actually
drags
the
price
of
bnt
with
it
a
little
bit.
The
same
is
true
of
chain
link
and
ethereum,
so
we
have
a
very
a
very
highly
correlated
price
now,
with
with
these
three
assets,
or
at
least
some
some
aggregate
version
of
them,
and
that
makes
it
you
know.
B
B
So
that
means
that
there's
about
30.21
that
aren't
in
circulation
that
30
percent
is
essentially
all
that
the
markets
have
to
try
and
move
the
price
of
b.
T
with
what's
interesting
is
like
you
know,
as
any
short
seller
will
be
able
to
tell
you,
is
that
the
price
in
the
down
direction
is
limited,
but
the
price
in
the
up
direction
is
unlimited.
B
So
as
long
as
the
tvl
of
bmt
inside
the
network
remains
high,
there's
actually
a
minimum
sorry
a
maximum
price
floor.
That's
that's
possible
to
achieve
if
every
single
bnt
on
the
secondary
market
was
all
sold
at
once,
which
is
a
really
nice.
You
know
safety
net
to
have,
I
think,
for
a
collateral
asset.
B
By
the
way,
this
isn't
a
this
is
a
symmetric
effect,
just
how
the
it's
now
difficult
to
push
the
price
of
b
and
t
down.
It's
also
requires
more
demand
pressure
to
force
the
bnt
price
up
so
just
like
when
I
was
explaining
with
tony
and
the
maker
tokens
when
the
b
t
price
is
going
up,
arbitrages
are
are
buying
it
off
the
pool
and
introducing
it
back
into
secondary
markets
by
depositing
the
other
token
on
the
other
side,
and
so
for
a
while.
B
I
was
curious
as
to
how
much
of
an
effect
this
would
actually
have
on
on
b
t
price
action,
but
just
recently,
we've
seen
that
it's
still
possible
to
get
that
really
nice
upwards
volatility,
and
so
I
think
we
started
this.
This
recent
rally
with
a
68
locked,
bnt
supply,
and
so
as
the
price
was
rallying
off
this
curve,
the
lock
supply
was
coming
down,
but
we're
now
back
to
that
same
value,
which
has
this
interesting
effect
of
kind
of
ratcheting,
the
the
bnt
price
upper
ladder.
B
This,
by
the
way,
is
happening
with
really
extreme
trading
volumes,
so
you
wouldn't
know
it
from
looking
at
the
price
charts,
because
b
t
now
has
this.
You
know
it's
kind
of
a
joke
in
in
d5
that
bancor
at
any
time
is
like
a
new
stable
coin,
but
actually
on
secondary
markets.
The
volume
is
going
completely
wild,
so
the
24
hour
volume
on
finance,
for
example,
in
the
the
hours
leading
up
to
this
presentation,
is
a
little
over
80
billion
dollars.
So
it's
not
like
it's
it's
not
being
traded.
B
B
The
other
thing
that
I
think
bmt
so
actually
I
meant
to
make
a
point
on
this
slide,
and
that
is
that
I
think,
having
a
an
asset
that
has
a
characteristic
non-volatility
is
a
really
good.
That's
a
characteristic
that
you
should
value
in
a
collateral
asset
right.
This
is
something
that
is
not
going
to
suddenly
drop
through
the
floor
and
cause.
You
know.
Liquidation
lags
or
something
like
that,
such
as
what
happened
to
the
maker
protocol
back
in
in
march
in
2020.
B
But
you
know
maker
provides
permissions
loans
and
so
we're
going
to
use
amy
wong
from
from
futurama
as
our
bnt
enthusiast
and
she's
got
some
bnt
and
she
wants
to
provide
that
as
collateral.
So
she
provides
that
to
make
her
make
provides
her
with
a
dire
stable
token,
and
then
she
takes
that
away
with
her.
B
B
This
is
what
I
think
bancor
really
brings
to
the
table,
and
that
is
that
it
has
a
pool
for
dye
that
is
already
68
million
dollars
deep,
and
so
that
collateral
is
directly
exchangeable
on
chain
four
die
at
the
time
that
the
liquidation
happens.
It
could
be
the
very
next
block
so
taking
the
collateral
and
then
exchanging
it
back
for
the
die
required
to
to
repay
the
loan
is
really
really
easy
bean.
B
So
I
see
this
as
being
actually
a
really
natural
way
for
for
collateralized
assets
to
be
exchanged
back
for
the
the
learned
asset,
and
I
we
didn't
know
that
we
were
doing
it
right.
It's
not
like.
We
built
the
the
dipole
specifically
for
this
purpose.
It
was
because
stable
coins
and
and
die
being
one
of
the
most
important
stable
coins.
Our
ecosystem
already
required
it.
B
The
other
thing
that
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
this
number
is
still
low.
We've
actually
deliberately
capped
some
of
the
stable
coins
at
relatively
small
amounts.
If
you
consider
68
million
to
be
a
small
amount,
but
the
problem
is
that,
because
die
has
a
stable
price.
The
impermanent
loss
relative
to
to
something
like
the
nt,
which
is
climbing
quite
quickly
is,
is
pretty
high,
and
so
this
becomes
a
bit
of
a
tax
on
our
system.
B
If
you
remember
that
we
spoke
about
the
fact
that
chain
link,
ethereum
and
wrapped
bitcoin
are
kind
of
all
pulling
on
each
other's
price.
Now
by
a
b
t,
the
same
is
true
of
the
stable
tokens,
and
so
they
kind
of
anchor
the
b
t
price
down
a
little
bit,
and
so
we've
got
sort
of
a
disincentive
to
to
make
these
pools
particularly
deep.
B
B
Liquidity
and
bancor
is
interested
in
you
know
not
necessarily
competing
with
them,
but
offering
a
similar
service,
and
as
that
product
gets
up
and
running,
it's
only
going
to
make
swapping
the
bnt
collateral
back
for
for
die
to
repay
the
loan
easier
over
time.
The
slippage
is
just
going
to
keep
coming
down.
B
B
But
if
anyone
wants
to
dig
into
the
the
bank
or
protocol
tokenomics
and
economic
and
quantitative
financial
analysis
a
little
bit
more
thoroughly,
we
actually
do
have
a
an
effective
white
paper,
an
economic
white
paper
out
on
this,
and
it
can
be
accessed
online
if
you
just
if
you
just
google
this
this
title
but
yeah.
Thank
you
for
listening
and
be
very
happy
to
accept
questions
now.
A
One
yeah,
so
I
I
was
wondering
how
how
you
kind
of
dealt
with
with
that.
I
mean
it's
a
lot
of
very
interesting
concepts.
I
think
I
need
to
sit
down
and
start
trying
to
poke
holes
in
the
in
the
theory
until
I
realize
that
probably
people
much
much
smarter
than
me
have
built
it,
but
but
yeah.
That's
how
I
try
to
to
understand
it.
B
A
B
I
I
don't
have
necessarily
an
ambition
to
start
at
any
number,
but
I
think
that
the
best
way
to
inform
that
decision
is
to
look
at
our
dive.
Ent
liquidity
depth
right,
because
what
you're
really
hoping
to
be
able
to
do
is
to,
during
a
liquidation
event,
to
be
able
to
swap
as
much
of
that
bank
or
back
as
possible
for
for
the
correct
amount
of
dye.
B
And
so
you
can
just
look
at
the
the
depth
of
the
dipole
and
then
set
up
a
an
acceptable
amount
of
slippage,
and
that
would
actually
just
give
you
the
exact
amount
of
of
dye.
That's
that's
possible
to
be
learned
at
any
time.
So
I
think
if
you
wanted
to
approach
it
in
a
an
objective
way,
that
would
be
a
good
way
to
go
about
it,
but
I
wouldn't
hope
to
to
recommend
what
an
acceptable
slippage
is.
B
B
A
I
don't
know
I
don't
know
if
the
the
keepers
is
the
the
the
participants
that
do
the
the
taker
of
the
auctions
right.
So
that's
definitely
one
of
the
metrics
that
that
the
risk
team
is
looking,
but
also,
I
don't
know,
usability,
that's
also
how
we
prioritize
different
tokens
and
how
we
onboard
them
under
different
factors,
but
yeah
you're
right
that
how
how
fast
you
can
cycle
the
assets
for
potential
liquidation
is
is
quite
important
for
the
risk
part,
but
also
the
part
of
the.
A
B
There
are
going
to
be
times
where
people
would
rather
not
sell
their
bankroll,
because
they're
expecting
that
you
know
the
price
is
going
to
appreciate
over
time,
but
for
whatever
reason
they
need
they
need
access.
They
need
to
access
some
of
that
value.
So
at
the
moment,
as
I
pointed
out
with
the
vortex
system
on
out
on
the
system
that
we
have
enabled
to
that,
gives
users
some
of
that
capability.
B
B
So
if
you're
selling,
for
example,
bbnt
to
to
train
and
get
die,
which
is
something
that
you
can
do
on
on
the
bangkok
protocol
right
now,
it's
not
clear
how
much
you're
going
to
have
to
repay
right,
because
the
the
the
price
of
b
and
t
can
change
the
price
of
b,
b
and
c
can
change,
and
so
for
a
lot
of
people.
That's
that's
a
an
unacceptable
risk
that
that
they
simply
won't
take.
B
We
have
you
know,
I
think
what
maker
offers
and
what
I
think
a
lot
of
bank
or
holders
would
like
is
the
ability
to
to
borrow
a
stable
loan.
I
think
the
advantage
of
borrowing
something
like
die
is
you
always
know
exactly
how
much
you
have
to
pay
back
and-
and
just
as
you
know,
just
as
ether
is
accepted
by
as
collateral
by
by
maker,
whatever
is
motivating
the
etho
holders
to
take
a
loan
is
the
same
thing
that
is
going
to
be
motivating
bnc
holders
to
take
over.
B
So
maker
is
our
priority,
so
this
is
the
this
would
be
the
first,
but
we
we
have
also
spoken
with
the
rv
team
recently
and
we're
trying
to
get
the
you
know.
We
will
be
preparing
the
proposal
for
their
risk
assessors
to
accept
bnt
on
average
shortly
in
in
both
of
these
cases.
By
the
way
it
actually
makes
a
lot
more
sense
in
terms
of
the
d5
lego
structure,
to
eventually
get
vbnt
listed
as
collateral
on
on
both
of
these
platforms.
B
The
the
problem
is,
is
that
bb
t
is
still
it's
not
very
liquid
right
now.
I
think
bancor
network
has
something
like
three
million
dollars
in
liquidity
for
it,
which
isn't
very
much,
and
that's
essentially,
one
of
the
only
places
that
you
can
buy
it.
I
think
there's
a
there's
another
source
of
liquidity
on
on
balancer,
but
not
as
deep
and
yeah.
So
a
as
a
you
know
from
the
bancor
network's
perspective.
A
B
Yeah,
so
I
mean
you
know
we
can.
We
can
run
a
couple
of
simulations
on
this,
but
it
really
depends
on
what
the
over
collateralization
is
and
and
how
fast
the
the
market's
changing
but
yeah.
If-
and
we
also
don't
know,
necessarily
what
the
risk
assessors
that
maker
are
going
to
decide
is
going
to
be
an
acceptable
risk
profile
for
fermenting
dye.
So
there's
too
many
unknowns.
B
B
B
A
B
B
A
B
A
B
I
you
know,
I
would
say
that
there
are
two
major
camps
and,
and
actually
there,
that's
not
even
true,
there's
a
full
spectrum,
but
at
one
end
of
the
spectrum
is
that
you
know
layer.
Two
is
the
godsend
that
ethereum's
been
waiting
for,
and
it
kind
of
fixes
all
of
the
ethereum's
problems
and
then
on
the
other
end
of
the
spectrum
is
that
layer,
2
is
just
another
side
chain,
and
you
know
moving
to
to
some
of
these
scaling
solutions
is
akin
to
moving
to
bsc
or
moving
to
polkadot
or
whatever.
B
I
would
say
that
I'm
somewhere
in
between
that,
I
think
that
layer
2,
will
have
a
a
really
important
role
in
the
future
of
ethereum,
but
that
layer,
one,
I
think,
will
still
be
the
the
commanding
main.
You
know
main
service
provider
main
support
infrastructure
for
for
services
on
on
ethereum
as
a
dex,
it's
difficult
to
know
exactly
which
way
to
go,
because,
as
you
point
out,
the
gas
fees
are
exorbitantly,
you
know,
are
getting
prohibitively
high
on
ethereum
and
so
moving
to
layer.
B
2
to
get
the
gas
fees
down
is
certainly
tempting
and
it's
very
valuable
in
terms
of
you
know,
user
sentiment.
I
think
that
we
could
even
attract
a
lot
more
volume,
potentially
it
on
a
layer
two.
However,
we
also
rely
on
activity
like
arbitrage,
for
example
that
need
to
rebalance
the
pools-
and
you
know
a
bunch
of
other
things
that
it's
not
clear
how
well
some
of
those
functions
will
continue
to
operate
if
they're
having
to
constantly
transition
between
layer,
one
and
layer
two.
B
I
think
that,
with
things
like
optimism,
for
example,
I
think
there's
like
a
six
day,
wait
time,
I
think,
to
to
change
layers,
and
I
I
can't
I
can
see
that
as
causing
some
pretty
unavoidable
problems,
and
it
may
even
lead
to
some
dysfunction.
You
know
as
as
it
decks
it
doesn't
mean
that
we're
not
interested
in
going
there.
B
You
may
know
that
we've
already
got
a
deployment
on
the
arvitrim
testnet
and
we
find
the
finality
I
think,
of
of
arbitrarium
extremely
attractive,
but
it's
still
uncertain
as
to
how
many
users
will
actually
go
there,
but
if
it
becomes
popular
and
there's
a
lot
of
users
up
there
and
the
you
know,
the
infrastructure
improves
and
it
looks
like
it's
a
popular
place
to
be
arbitrary.
Sorry
bangkor
is
extremely
blockchain
agostic,
and
so
we
will
go
there
similar
to
our
our
bridge
on
moonbeam
on
polkadot.
A
A
B
A
B
Yeah,
so
I'm
actually
active
on
the
maker
forum.
I
think
that
my
my
username
is
was
included
with
the
with
this.
With
this
onboarding
call,
it's
actually
strange,
like
so
maker
was
the
the
first
dow
that
I
ever
became
involved
in
right.
It
was
the
first
forum
that
I
that
I
joined
and
tried
to
learn
about
how
dallas
operate,
and
oh
that
was
long
before
I
I
was
a
part
of
bangkok,
so
yeah
you
can
reach
me
there.
If
you
like,
I,
I
still
check
that
forum
regularly.
B
I
like
to
see
what
what
maker
is
up
to.
I
I
really
admire
how
the
the
dow
operates
and
organizes
itself.
So,
if
you
message
me
there
I
will
find
it,
but
otherwise
you
can
always
reach
out
to
me
on
telegram
or
on
twitter.
I
check
those
almost
every
day
and
I
think
yeah
or
you
can
also
email
me,
which
is,
which
is
my
name
mark
at
bancor.network
and
I'll,
be
happy
to
to
respond
to
you
via
email
as
well
sounds
good,
I'm
not
sure.