I kinda like the proposal, but I voted no, at least for now, because …
I’m seeing a pattern in these early days of the Curve DAO. The pattern is that a Curve participant wants to add a specific new token, and lays out the various arguments as to why this particular new token should be the next token or pool to be launched.
I’d like to see us debate the more general policy of when and under what circumstances new tokens should be added.
I don’t have a tremendous amount to say as to exactly what the rules should be, but I think there should be some principles and rankings as to how new pools get added to the Curve platform.
There are dozens of stablecoins. Should every stablecoin should have a place on Curve? Or only certain ones? And if it’s only certain stablecoins, then how do we decide? Is it by market cap? by volume? by volume as a percentage of market cap? by meme quality?
And how should we weigh incentives provided the sponsor of the coin?
In this case, if the backers of dForce were going to sponsor the pool the way that Synthetix sponsored the sUSD and sBTC pools, I might feel very different about the proposal.
Similarly, how should we evaluate it if the new token sponsor (say dForce) is willing to pay a listing fee?
It’s also worth considering whether the choice we make to include a new pool is a reversible decision or not. If it’s an irreversible decision, the standard for acceptance and the anticipated economics should be much higher.
This is DeFi. Things break, mistakes happen, everyone’s learning as they go. But in this case, the biggest DeFi hack to date, was a result of gross negligence. The vulnerability was well documented and there had even been a smaller attack on Uniswap before dForce was drained. There was an opportunity to protect users, and the ball was completely dropped. This is the sort of event that no one bounces back from unless they’re in DeFi where the users dont have an attention span longer than 5 minutes.
Imagine if this event happens to the dToken pool. LPs collectively lose tens of millions. It’s not really Curve’s fault if it was a problem with the dToken pool, specifically. But Curve accepted the pool and gave it its seal of approval, tying its reputation with the promise of good reliable performance from all of the pools it hosts. I don’t know how bad the fallout would be, but I’d rather avoid finding out.
I’m kind of fond of the idea that Curve could be one of the few DeFi apps left standing in a few years, and I’d prefer to play the long game by putting new pool proposals (and the teams that propose them) through heavy scrutiny. In order to protect Curve’s reputation and its longevity.
Having lost $25,000,000 of your user’s money in the past should be an obvious insta-rejection
you left out the most inconvenient truth (intentionally or unintentionally) that all funds were returned and redistributed back to the users, users were 100% made whole, we didn’t lose a dime of user’s fund, this was a hack without losing any money.
On the contrary, you seemingly ignored the fact that Maker lost $8m due to oracle malfunction during black Thursday and many other countless hacks with user funds lost. Name me 3-5 DeFi protocols which have no hack history.
There is DeFi hack every month, your selective bias is hilarious.
DeFi is on the frontier of open finance experiments and it is highly risky endeavors, even after all security audits, no one can guarantee it’s risk free and try not to mislead people into beleiving that there is hack-proof DeFi protocol, there is none.
@ DefiKING I am a Chinese user,Defi is very difficult,Dforce is the strongest Defi team in China. I know Curve through them, I will be providing liquidity in Curve.
I am new here, I know less about DeFi, but I know this is a good team, they helped me a lot to know more about DeFi, and I am glad to see they are growing more and more flourish.