Request for feedback: Options for tBTC pools

Not affected. See the sbtc pool in [tBTC, [sbtc pool]] as another coin you deposit.

1 Like

Alright good enough for me. [tBTC, [sBTC pool]] metapool is the way to go. Do we know how this will affect gas costs?

1 Like

Doing a swap in [tBTC, [sBTC pool]] between tBTC and sBTC pool token will be same as gas costs in 3pool, doing a swap between tBTC and an asset in sBTC pool will be same as swap from tBTC -> sBTC LP token -> withdraw in one coin from sBTC pool

2 Likes

Ok so there’s an extra step that increases cost, but I’m inclined to think that the access to all our other BTC tokens + the safety of keeping tBTC isolated from the core pool is pretty clearly a net positive for everyone

2 Likes

Time to get voting I guess :slight_smile:

4 Likes

Always eager to see more pools on Curve.

I am totally for a tBTC/wBTC (or tBTC/*BTC) as individual users can choose to opt-in for this pool or not.

As for a metapool, I don’t fully understand the mechanichs yet, but I’ll trust @charlie_eth explanations about risk exposure on other *BTC assets.

From that, my pros/cons for a metapool are :

PROS :

  • Fair to integrate it to existing *BTC, since other projects are adopted and are not 100% risk-free (WBTC/sBTC/renBTC)
  • If we consider that the current sBTC pool is already a risky pool, then adding tBTC is risk diversification (actually, is it still the case for a metapool ?).

CONS :

  • Early / low cap.
  • If we consider that the current sBTC pool is not already a risky pool, then adding tBTC is adding a risk.

No 100% conviction on this, but since both “CONS” might just need some time to disapear, I’d lead toward :

  • Create a new tBTC/*BTC pool where people can choose to provide liquidity or not (it might require liquidity incentive programs from KEEP)
  • Experiment meta-pool on stable-coins (for example plug some PAX-based stablecoins like PAX/BUSD/HUSD to the 3pool)
  • When everything is good on both meta-pool trials and tBTC development, reconsider the question of the existing sBTC pool (maybe new BTC on Ethereum coins will be there, maybe sBTC won’t have so much volume anymore, maybe there will be a big refactoring of pools, …)

On the long-term I believe in a yBTC that would be a basket of multiple BTC flavors on Ethereum. A basket that we would trust as much as we trust stablecoins today. We are already building fast enough in my opinion so I’d be sad to see trust collapsing just because we wanted to go a little bit too fast.

Is it true tbtc down?? Wtf

1 Like

Couldn’t init a deposit yesterday. Lost faith immediately /s.

I’m for the isolated pool, for all the cons aforementioned. Vote incoming!

Not at all. The system doesn’t allow new deposits when there isn’t a bond to back them, to keep from being undercollateralized — and ETH bonded was briefly lower. Quite a bit more ETH from stakers now.

2 Likes

I give you my vote for tBTC poll

1 Like

Considering that tBTC is completely decentralized,open source and passed audits I think everyone will benefit when adding a pool tBTC/[renBTC/sBTC/wBTC]

1 Like

exchanging for TBTC is very easy and secure, which is why I support TBTC pool

1 Like

Against. It’s far too early, tBTC needs more time to demonstrate security and scalability.

1 Like

I also give my vote for tBTC

I vote FOR tBTC integration

Really think tBTC is too early.

Saw this recently on the Aave thread but can the tBTC folks explain the multiple 10 BTC liquidations and the ‘Setup Failed’ transactions? What you all are doing to resolve this?

https://allthekeeps.com/deposits

Given all this, are you confident tBTC should be included in Curve so early?

Hey @StevieWonder, both of those are the protocol working as intended — I suggest you give the spec a read.

A signer went offline when a tBTC redemption was requested. The redeeming user requested a liquidation, and got their funds from the signer’s bond. If a situation like this happened with renBTC or WBTC, the user would be out of luck and need to seek legal recourse.

You’re welcome to read more about failed setups in the spec as well… but I’m not really sure what they have to do with Curve?

I appreciate that this stuff is new, but there’s nothing scary going on here. Custodial risk is on the signers, where it should be.

Not particularly concerned with WBTC or renBTC, this proposal is about tBTC.

I suppose the larger question is, don’t you think these systems should experience a variety of market conditions to ensure there is no systemic risk to tBTC?

I understand your desire to have tBTC propagated throughout the ecosystem but shouldn’t things systems be fully tested out in all scenarios first, before putting users’ funds at risk?

Are you fully confident this will not be an issue in the future?

This is exactly why we have a guarded release. This is a classic chicken and egg problem — how can you be sure of safety without market activity? How can you have market activity without safety?

That’s why we’ve set a graduated supply cap. You can never be fully confident a system is secure, and anyone who says otherwise is either inexperienced or dishonest.

Not particularly concerned with WBTC or renBTC, this proposal is about tBTC.

Haha you say that, but appear to be following me from forum to forum… is there an agenda? :wink:

I’m mentioning alternatives because liquidations show the strength of this model, not a weakness. This is a protection built into the protocol that’s above and beyond other options.

Not following you bud, been here for a while so may want tone down that narcissism.

Just want to evaluate and be crystal clear on the system risk tBTC introduces to a pool that have quite a lot of funds in. Thanks

1 Like