Creating More Capacity

Thanks for the comments everyone.

There seems to be general consensus around the 20x leverage.

With the capacity factors there is a mix of support but also some concern with newer projects around increasing from 1x to 2x. I understand this concern, as initially I was having the same thoughts but have now changed my view for a few reasons.

  1. We are primarily concerned with mitigating the attack, which with permissioned listing is not really a concern.
  2. 1x feels too constraining, it’s often challenging to bootstrap small but still meaningful capacity on new listings. This is likely to be highlighted with lots of new listings with Yield Token Cover if we don’t change it. Ultimately stakers still manage capacity by choosing how much they stake.
  3. Stakers are taking on 50% of the rewards but bearing close to 100% of the risk with 1x capacity (there is more subtlety to it but overall this is roughly correct). This doesn’t feel fair and staking returns need to improve.

I’m inclined to put both these changes into governance as I originally suggested, 20x leverage and capacity factors to 2x min, but would like to hear any strong dissenting views first.

@0xjack @HeyChristopher

Small note: we haven’t’ listed Alpha v2 yet, which was the one that had the exploit.

4 Likes

Increasing capacity will drive growth and distribution, so I am all for it.

But would it be possible to limit the capacity multiples only to a few projects that are handpicked for now? We don’t reach capacity for 95% of all contracts and applying that to all contracts equally seems overblown to me. I would limit it to Curve, Compound, Uniswap, etc, those contracts which have proven to be in high demand and very stable.

Current capacity factors are:

  • 4x for older established protocols (Maker, Compound v2, Uni V2, Aave v1, Balancer V1…)
  • 2x for CeFi and for anything else released pre Aug 2020
  • 1x for anything released post Aug 2020 not on the above list

This proposal is about shifting all 1x to 2x

Full 4x List for reference.

Protocol Factor
Set Protocol V1 4
RenVM 4
Argent 4
UMA 4
Curve All Pools (incl staking) 4
Synthetix 4
Yearn Finance 4
Aave V1 4
MakerDAO MCD 4
Balancer 4
Compound V2 4
Uniswap V2 4
Gnosis Multi-sig 4
Tornado Cash 4
Gnosis Safe 4
Uniswap v1 4
2 Likes

Thanks for explaining your reasoning a bit more for the capacity increase across the board.

It still feels a little weird to me that something like Alpha or a new protocol gets the same factor as something like Sushiswap. But maybe we can tweak the capacity limits more down the road if it doesn’t conflict with the road map.

Moving everything up to 2x makes sense to me given your explanation!

1 Like

Agreed with you on Sushi but if anything, I would then say that Sushi could also potentially be in-line to move up to 4x like Uniswap, as it is a more established project. Overall I agree with Hugh on his points 2 & 3; increasing leverage across the board will help to bootstrap capacity as will improving staking rewards. So agreed we could potentially further tweak the relative leverage factors, but also feel that 2x should be the base factor for all projects.

Hey everyone - the proposal to implement the increased capacity factors is now live for member vote here: Nexus Mutual

2 Likes