This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I have spent the last couple of days thinking about your viewpoint. I have a few clarifications.
- difficulty in calculating a fair price and slippage for Alts (which affects protocols which rely on oracles, liquidations mechanics, etc.);
There are no external oracles or liquidations. It does rely on the ratio of assets in the pool during deposits and is able to do that for any token because of the security provided by single asset deposit.
- the pressure of projects to compete on go-to-market timings and financial product innovations resulting in many novel products that have not yet been empirically battle-tested.
There is no market timing. The system simply adjusts liquidity based on deposit asset percentage to avoid over-selling the deposit asset. These settings have been extensively backtested and used in production for 11+ months.
- web of borrowings and collateral assets across entities and other “degen-box” type activity.
There is no borrowing, collateral, leverage, or liquidation. The system only has three primary functions: deposit, withdraw, and rebalance. The rebalance function can only set one or two Uniswap V3 positions.
Are you open to a call to further discuss the system and its benefits for BitDAO? Or to deploying a limited amount of non-BIT assets as a test?