With the oracle improvement done, the protocol ready to list new markets. I am proposing to add MKR, AAVE, SUSHI, and YFI. I consider all four coins to be blue-chip DeFi tokens and very logical additions to the protocol. Each token will have a zero collateral factor (initially), the same interest rate model (as COMP/LINK), and a reserve factor of 25% for each market (which is standard).
Once the community confirms the ropsten cTokens deployments look correct, we will deploy the cTokens to mainnet, work with Chainlink to get the new oracle set up and post the simulation info for the new markets.
Since this proposal follows historical precedents and sets the collateral factor to zero for all markets, I think it should be a straightforward addition to the protocol. Due to the ten governance action limit per proposal, I’ll likely propose them individually or in pairs if there is strong support. Once the assets are listed, I intend on circling back to make a proposal/forum post to increase their collateral factors.
Since AAVE already supports xSUSHI, I think it would be beneficial to the DeFi ecosystem if Compound listed SUSHI. That being said, I do not see a reason why we could not list both of them.
It’s great to see the integration already starting to pay off with the addition of new assets. I can’t see any reason against adding blue chips like these (especially w/ a zero collateral factor to start),
Adding these four markets makes complete sense, and I think these markets will have broad support.
Starting these markets at a 0% collateral factor, 0 COMP distribution allows them to be added without any controversy; afterwards, the community should discuss & debate the introduction of collateral factors & COMP distributions (and how and why they might vary by asset).
Fantastic suggestion, and thank you for getting the ball rolling @getty
Excited to see more blue chips being added to Compound! I’m wondering what the major benefits are to starting with a collateral factor of 0 if it is just going to be increased in the immediate future? Would it not be beneficial to hash out those details now?
Collateral factors parameters are set on a coin by coin basis. The goal with my proposal is to keep it at a high level so we can add these relatively quickly (2-4 weeks). Once a coin gets added, I intend on creating a separate forum thread for each market to tune the collateral factor. Plus, this gives the protocol a little extra margin for whenever an asset is added.
Completely in support of this - thanks to @elee & @getty for putting this together, makes total sense to have blue chip tokens as markets on Compound. Do you think it would be valuable to codify the general ways that we approach token listings for blue-chip, medium-risk and high-risk tokens? If so - would love to help out in any way we can.
That’s not a bad idea to explore IMO. I know there have been discussions around things like Reserve Factor Standardization for different asset types (which led to Prop 31). However I don’t think anything regarding collateral factors or interest rate models is official/codified AFAIK.
Definitely makes sense to do imo - as DeFi expands what we consider to be blue-chip tokens will as well and it’ll speed up these proposals and require less discussion if we codify for collateral factors & interest rate models.
I’m in favor of adding these markets, but I’d strongly advocate for a different sequence of events here.
I believe it’s time for the Compound community to come up with a framework for adding new assets so that additions don’t feel ad-hoc.
I propose that prior to adding these new assets, we codify v1 of such a framework, and then evaluate these token additions by the terms of the new framework.
@getty@rleshner I’d be happy to work with others on this work if there’s appetite to take this on.
+1
I would definitely advocate for having a set proceedure (that you can maybe deviate off a little), which would definately help for adding more assets. We should make some sort of “whitepaper” for this
I can confirm that this set of contracts has been deployed correctly and matches the code at commit ae4388e780a8d596d97619d9704a931a2752c2bc. Be sure to enter the correct admin (timelock) and Comptroller when deploying to mainnet.
I do agree with @brendan_dharma that a more formalized process here is definitely needed and now is the time to set it up.
Agreed, would be good to codify before and let these markets be a clear example of how v1 of the framework can be leveraged. Would love to help out here as well! We should set up a call sometime in the next few days to get the ball rolling.
It is hard to make a formal framework when everything is changing as fast as it is in DeFi. That being said, I’m happy to give my input if someone wants to take the lead on this.
Here is the general flow I am following/doing:
Before the forum post: The proposer really needs to ask themselves if their proposed market is ready to be on Compound and they need to ask themselves if they are willing to fight for it to be listed.
Forum post: It should include a summary/bio of the asset, some info on token distribution, mintability, liquidity/trading stats, why Compound should add it, proposed parameters, and testnet deployment.
Initial community feedback: If the forum post has a warm reception and the testnet deployment is good then launch on mainnet.
Mainnet community feedback: If the mainnet token deployment is done correctly and the community is happy the proposer should make a governance proposal or CAP to add the asset.
After initial listing: The proposer should post a recommendation for a collateral factor (and any other parameters they want to set) and rationale.
Parameter community feedback: Give the community an opportunity to give their input. If a rough consensus is reached then deploy a proposal/CAP for the changes.
As for what default parameters the proposer should use. I recommend finding the most similar asset on the protocol and using that as a starting place. Much of what has been done so far in this proposal is based on the recent cLINK and cCOMP additions.
I think there is a balance between bureaucracy and efficiency. I don’t know what the answer is but I hope to set a good example for the community
Just wanted to state full agreement here about Compound being overdue for an asset listing / risk assessment framework.
For context, Aave’s risk framework (Methodology - Risk) is quite extensive and actively used in discussions on new asset listings and selecting / adjusting collateral ratios. It’s hard to envision any of these new markets being listed and moving off of a zero collateral factor without a similar framework that Compound’s community is aligned on.
Happy to help provide input too, from having been in those discussions within the Aave community. Any community members with risk analysis / actuarial expertise should absolutely jump in too btw, would be a great way to lead and contribute.
Going back to the topic at hand - in support of adding these markets @getty and IMO given that they’re being added at 0% collateral factor, OK to move forward. I don’t see a big risk of setting precedent here, since it seems like there’s enough interest to start on codifying an asset listing framework shortly.