gm, another update.
feedback is generally positive across the stakeholders I am engaging.
Conversations with wallets (Bleap, Aura) were particularly insightful. Note that the wallets I reached out to are still early stage (<10k MAU), but they see vaults earning high, diversified yield as very compelling for their users and as a potential competitive advantage for their platforms.
For them, priorities fall into three main categories.
- Access to secondary liquidity.
It’s important that their users are able, in normal conditions, to withdraw with minimal delays their capital. Vaults with extended lock ups would create friction for them.
What this means for BLAZE:
Less but accessible liquidity can be more valuable than larger amounts of primary liquidity.
For projects like DualMint and Fractalized, LPing into their AMMs can help expand the accessible market.
For projects like Estate Protocol, which aim to enable users to leverage real estate, wallets offering vaults may want to provide access to the stablecoin vault borrowed by leveragers. As seen in the Gnosis market mentioned above, returns can be as high as the primary assets, while maintaining exposure to the same underlying collateral. For BLAZE, this would imply providing a buffer in that vault.
-
Review & due diligence for each project
We can help wallets explain to their users the assets and risks they are investing in. Having a standardized framework to review and present projects would go a long way. -
Uniform and easy vault integration
All vaults need to be easy to integrate and ideally standardized to simplify the dev experience. Rather than proposing single vaults, DualMint could expose their index vault aggregating all their assets.
There may also be an opportunity to aggregate all vaults behind a single API, a model already envisioned by other initiatives - see “Plaid for Crypto”:
Next steps:
• complete feedback from major delegates / any contributors who want to collaborate
• realign with opCo
• decide on timing and approach for moving to a vote