We need an AMM Pool for rBTC/zUSD

As we all know, BabelFish has paused the exchange from zUSD into xUSD and that affects not only ZeroProtocol but also Sovryn stakers.

I proposed we add a second option for ZeroProtocol loan takers to exchange their new zUSD into rBTC. BabelFish can continue to be an option, AMM pool will only serve as a second way to get into rBTC when you hold zUSD either because you took a long, or you got zUSD some other way.

If BabelFish continues to pause the exchange from zUSD into xUSD, we risk taking the hit and by that, what I mean is that users who hold a lot of bitcoins may decide to leave and never come back. When you have lots of money, you don’t want to find issues without money because that could signal something much worse could be at play.

The rBTC/DoC pool is working with very little liquidity since rBTC/zUSD is supposed to only be a redundancy method. It doesn’t need mountains of liquidity what DoC is having zUSD could work with the same amount.

We stakers benefit from Zero users taking loans because of that 0.5% fee and we the stakers can continue to benefit from the rBTC/zUSD pool because that trading activity will create even more fees for us. If people want to take loans and open more loans that is their business we are here to provide a service not be financial advisors.

If the community decides to ignore such a white elephant we risk those Bitcoiners never coming back, especially if they open a line of credit and pay the 0.5% for nothing because they realize they can’t do jack sh!t with it. You could still use the redeem option but I am pretty sure that will come at a premium and that premium could defeat the advantage that a zero interest offers, and if that premium goes higher and higher the 0% interest loan narrative could be seen as misinformation or worst.

I explain to my friend what is going on and his first answer was it looks like your protocol is sabotaging itself for some reason because instead of building the protocol they are trying to stop something that is growing.

I am not proposing the end of the xUSD conversion I am proposing we add a direct way to make use of the Sovryn loan.

You could also add support for DLLR but do that once it becomes available as a third option to use your loan, don’t chuck innovation for something that is not ready.

I think creating a new rBTC/zUSD will only take a few hours and it is just a matter of liquidity I think it will be much faster than creating DLLR.

Please share your opinion, and if possible signal your support if you would like to see an AMM pool for rBTC/zUSD, the other pools can remind the same.

Hello I think that the best should be an AMM fork of Curve $ to $ dollar convertion.

A curve pool for zusd/xusd is the best option (lower fees)

I think the team won’t allow that because their next pet project is DLLR so that they can continue milking the cow, and also because probably they are already thinking to do another DAI, which started with ETH backed and later on added centralized stablecoins.

They want DLLR so that they can, later on, introduce stablecoins into the mix.

Yes a Curve-style StableSwap pool would be more appropriate in this case. That said, BabelFish are currently working on their own experimental algorithm to try and bring balance back to their aggregator, which they intend to have a similar effect as StableSwap at incentivizing the rebalancing of assets in the aggregator. They have a post describing it here: BIP 000X: Babelfish Basket Balancing - BabelFish

I think we should wait to see how this performs before investing any Sovryn resources into creating an alternative solution to the problem of stablecoin liquidity management.


Not sure what cow you’re referring to, but can say I would oppose any attempt to change the composition of the Sovryn Dollar backing to be anything but BTC or exclusively BTC-backed stablecoins. There is already a stablecoin project for fiat and other collateral backed stablecoins, it is called BabelFish XUSD. https://babelfish.money

1 Like

If DLLR can be kept backed just by Bitcoin-backed stablecoins it will be fantastic, but eventually, the team will introduce centralized stablecoins to the mix, if you can guarantee no amount of team developers can introduce centralized stablecoins no matter how much they bitch about it, DLLR will be a good asset, but I am afraid long enough centralized stablecoins will be introduced.

Well, while you discuss what to use and what not. Stakers are receiving zero rewards from Zero because no new lines of credit are being opened. Investors don’t need to open lines of credit if they can’t buy more Bitcoin with it, and it seems they are not interested in putting money in the stability pool either.

In crypto, once you get the ball rolling you don’t want to stop that ball from rolling because if you stop that momentum you risk investors leaving and never coming back.

Admins like matt think that DLLR can be created in 30 days, so there is no need to worry about stakers not getting any rewards. I feel like the dev team is actually actively working against retail investors and retail that bought tokens to stake.

No one cares that stakers now don’t have any income whatsoever staking is paused no income from there, zero is useless no rewards from there either. It is like staking is just good to lose money over time.

But you can discuss all you want in the meantime stakers get zero rewards.

1 Like

One simple solution that doesn’t require any voting or asking permission is to use IchibanSwap dex and add liquidity to the BTC/zusd pool. That dex is new, now which means Sovryn protocol won’t have to provide liquidity but users must do so. I guess that is the price of decentralization you must pay the price which is to proviliquorliquidity so the case close.