USTC Incremental Repeg, Buybacks, Staking, Swaps

[rofo_pet]

All those who made very interesting comments voted yes. There is no one who voted no, how is this… If the one who voted no should tell us why he gave no, we would be informed… I guess the dark hands don’t want #lunc to progress.

[arunadaybasu]

I think you’re talking about Thor. He had explained his view on this long before:

TCB

[rofo_pet]

giving an opinion … I do not believe that this friend #lunc has in hand … There is almost no owner of #lunc who voted no, but the vote goes to no … Who votes no and why … I want an explanation of things we do not know

[Miryon]

I think, after reading carefully and with my little tech-knowledge that it’s a good proposal. I vote Yes. Let’s see if it passes or no.

[Pet_Sopolis]

Oh Yeah!

[Percy]

I vote YES

[Evgen]

He right. New taxes for poor USTC holders cant create any capital (capital for peg) or create massive USTC burn/buyback.

@RedlineDrifter

We are sharing the profits with CEXs, it’s not us burning their money as we have been doing.

At the expense of whom do you want to make this profit?
Low volumes USTC market?

[RedlineDrifter]

I’ve spoken to him. Thor doesn’t believe in any USTC Repeg solution, he thinks the Debt is too high and it would be a better option to start fresh from 0 mcap, but using the protocol I designed. This would be much quicker and easier but we’d be writing off the debt of USTC holders and I don’t think thats something the community supports.

I’ve put forward a fairly equitable method to recover the debt/loss of all holders but it’d be over time. It involved no minting, rev splits or forks. It will be at the expense of anyone who sells USTC below the peg price. Not anyone who sells at or above.

You seem to be searching for a magical solution where we will rapidly repeg USTC without giving anything in return. This does not exist. If you want to repeg USTC, the capital has to come from somewhere, nobody is going to just give us these funds! Where do you propose we source this?

I’ve spent a lot of time working out the calculations and trading data to show this is feasible. Other than this proposal we are running out of options. If you think there is a better solution you’re more than welcome to spend the time putting one together. I’m happy to find compromise with people to push this forward, but if you can’t compromise then I can’t help you.

[godoal]

@RedlineDrifter

@godoal

Sorry, I don’t understand all of what was described; it’s very easy to miss things when you don’t have a high-level design diagram (bird-eyes view) of how the system is supposed to work.

e.g. Would help if there was a diagram of sorts depicting the various components mentioned and how they interact to provide the complete cyclical (closed loop) solution described (unless this is an open system solution).

I had a careful read through the proposal and it sounds like a feasible approach.
You need to work on a technical architecture diagram for the proposed solution depicting how the various components cooperate and fit with each other.

It needs to be able to tell the story that you are trying to convey with this proposal so that can be used as the blueprint for your discussions with the CEXes.

[whisper_NL]

Come on validators vote please, we need a strong signal here

[STRAJACK]

I spent some time to read the proposal and i got my thoughts. I think this is a good starting point to experiment with the USTC repeg, I hope this brings us closer to $1 and long the way we can better analyze the repeg phases in the next 12 months, it won’t be a short road but now we have one.
Definitively YES,
Good Luck!

[Kitthichai_Punchawat]

yes for me , very good idea

[godoal]

@STRAJACK

I think this is a good starting point to experiment with the USTC repeg

Definitely.

The easiest way I can think of to describe the trade/market flow of the Divergence logic algorithm is:

• The lower we are from the peg price the greater the loss is for the seller, therefore incentivizing sellers to hold until the system is much closer to peg price (equilibrium price range) so they reduce their lost margins
• The higher we are from the peg price the more loss is for the seller, therefore incentivizing sellers to hold until the system resets (after 48 hours) to a higher peg price (equilibrium price range) so they have higher gain margins

[Zaireeka]

Happy to give it a try and give it a go, well put prop

[vBlake]

I hope your proposal passes if for some reason it doesn’t we will have to speak with all the validators that voted no or abstained

[Peter_Sutton]

I have been following the comments and posters concerns, just finished listening to your interview with HCC and you just got my YES vote.

[J_E1]

I would like to know in any of the scenarios you mentioned can USTC go above $1? I realize the goal is for it to never go below $1 eventually but we need to know can it go above $1 ? For example $2 or even $3. Is this a possibility?

[whisper_NL]

Hey, I’m sure redline will be happy to answer, but you can already take a look at scenario 2 in the proposal

[Evgen]

@RedlineDrifter

I’m happy to find compromise with people to push this forward, but if you can’t compromise then I can’t help you.

Maybe for a first you will offer to stop distribution? If you really want to support USTC.

@J_E1

I would like to know in any of the scenarios you mentioned can USTC go above $1?

USTC to the $10!!!

[wagnerdalcin]

At 1USD the divergence fee will work the other around to keep UST pegged

Scenario 2: Price is above Peg of $1USD (X<Y)

(We will not see this activated in the protocol until we are actually at $1USD if at all, this will not feature in the initial stages of the incremental repeg plan)

In this scenario the Seller creates a sell order of $1USTC for $1.10USD, the Buyer pays $1.10USD for the $1UST, the Seller receives $1.00USD and the protocol receives $0.10USD in divergence fees.