Rejected

#337 Onboard Brale and Glo Dollar to Kusama AssetHub v2 - inc ability to create Kusama & Polkadot branded stablecoins

Proposer:

Fvrb...FVGn

in Treasury

30th Jan '24

(Edited)

treasury

Description

AI Summary

Votes Bubble

Timeline

Evaluation

On Chain Info

Stats

See full proposal here

Updates from v1.

— community have more familiarity with treasurer track.

— Kusama confirmation period now 48 hours rather than 3 hours post upgrade.

— corrected issue with a spend amount in one payment (2475 was 24755 in preimage).

— Brale technical integration expected to be 16 weeks rather than 12 weeks to give extra time for audits.

— more detail on opportunity to launch Kusama and Polkadot branded stablecoins in phase 2a/2b.

— addition of this graphic to explain phases.

Users are saying...

Based on all comments and replies

Overall 50 % of users are feeling neutral. The discussion revolves around whether Kusama and Polkadot need their own branded stablecoins, considering market needs for utility and diversity in design/values. The conversation also touches on the technical aspect of hex conversion and delimiter strings used by a converter tool. It concludes with an argument that both networks should have their own stablecoin to maintain consistency with their roles and complement each other technically, socially, and culturally.

Overall 50 % of users are feeling against it. The proposal for Decent Partners' integration into Asset Hub is criticized as overpriced and lacking professionalism, with insufficient technical briefings for Brale and Glo. The high costs are deemed unnecessary, especially considering the minimal work required for a $50k pool. Additionally, DP is considered unqualified to broker this integration. A reevaluation of costs and ecosystem agents is recommended.

AI-generated from comments

JFAr...nYVt

31st Jan '24

How is the invoice data encoded in the remark? I tried to convert hex to ASCII but the result was meaningless.

Hide replies

Fvrb...FVGn

31st Jan '24

@BILL hey bill, the hex is correct but the converter used has an output delimiter string which was set to space, rather than none. The conversion worked fine there, but obvs not without that parameter.

not sure how to decode the hex taking into account the space — currently doing some digging.

and how it would display with none.

EvoL...oVus

31st Jan '24

Date: 30/01/2024
Proposal to: Kusama common good fund
Summary: Onboard Brale and Glo Dollar to Kusama 
Approval: Simple Majority
Read full proposal: https://rfc.decent.partners/t/onboard-brale-and-glodollar-to-kusama-assethub/57

Spend sent in parallel to three separate verified beneficiary accounts.

Scheduled as two payments:

- 50% paid out to addresses 1 block after confirmation.
- 50% paid out 1612800 blocks after confirmation (16 weeks).

Optimistic grant assumes core integration and launch functions are completed within 16 weeks. 

Glo Consortium integrations and marketing are likely to continue beyond the 12 weeks. 

Any issues will be reported at least 2 weeks ahead of scheduled payment due date.

Kusama governance retains oversight of second payment.

If necessary second payment can be rescheduled or cancelled.

Unused volatility buffer returned to treasury. 

Beneficiary: Brale
Website: https://brale.xyz  
Verified address: F9ob8GJg7CCMpUKrR6PJdS9tpgDBKSw4CWNjGpEPgahnTVJ
Responsibilities: Issuance, regulations, insurance, redemptions, custody, audits.
Grant: $125,000
Volatility buffer 10%: $12,500
Total: $137,500
Date: 2024-01-30
KSM EMA30: $40.00
Total KSM: 3438 

Beneficiary: Glo Dollar
Website: https://glodollar.org 
Verified address: Fy3bL9Qw8LUpQCvv8tsoWNQcH8onZggg2PYT7bdL5LbhDTn
Responsibilities: Marketing, market making, partnerships and integrations
Initial liquidity: $25k KSM and $25k USDGLO
Glo consortium integrations & announcements: $75k
Total grant: $125,000
Volatility buffer 10%: $12,500
Total: $137,500**
Date: 2024-01-30
KSM EMA30: $40.00
Total KSM: 3438 

Total USD: $275,000
Total KSM: 6876

Beneficiary: Decent Partners
Website: https://decent.partners 
VAT number: GB306867875
Verified address: FvrbaMus8iASyrQYkajQWDxsYvG5gb72PFPuvy8TvkFFVGn
Responsibilities: Research, strategy, business development, stakeholder relations, proposal development.
10% Network Service Fee (NSF): $25,000
+10% volatility buffer: $2,500
Total: $27,500
-- GBP: £21,750
-- VAT @ 20%: £4,350
-- Total GBP: £26,100
Total USD: $33,100
Date: 2024-01-30
KSM EMA30: $40.00
Total KSM: 828

Total spend to be approved:

Grants: $275,000 (inc volatility buffer)|
Network Services: $33,100 (inc VAT, volatility buffer)
Total: $308,100
Total KSM: 7704

HyLi...Hqmx

1st Feb '24

(Edited)

Do you need different Kusama and Polkadot branded stablecoins? \ Why can't a gUSD be teleportable between Kusama and Polkadot AssetHubs?

Hide replies

Fvrb...FVGn

1st Feb '24

@METASPAN it depends how you frame the 'need'.

If the need is pure stablecoin utility - ie just mediating volatilty, then the market only needs one (USDT) but this would be a narrow view since every stablecoin created is pushed to offer different qualities across an expanding design/values space.

So yes, there could just be a Polkadot USD stablecoin per your example, but given revenue on yield flows to the issuing entity, that would be like only having a Polkadot treasury.

The question follows, does Kusama need its own treasury? Or even its own token?

Additionally, it makes sense to experiment with Kusama first, this was the reason it was created after all.

In general, the two networks complement each other, technically, socially and culturally by being different — they each fund different things for example.

In time, we'd hope that there will be many more branded stablecoins — different currencies (not just USD) and different designs.

In some ways, this is a continuation of the original Polkadot bet against token maximalism.

So our argument would be yes, both networks should have their own stablecoin, since it remains consistent with their existing roles.

Cgat...B8c3

2nd Feb '24

hello team!,

Thanks for the proposal, nice to see the altruistic concept behind GloDollar and trusting the 100% asset backing mechanism.

We would be more than happy with leaving the proposal at Phase 1 as we see no benefits on the "white label" approach of repackaging same product into Polkadot or Kusama branding, just increased dilution, added complexity and maybe fostering confusion on where the tech dev & support efforts and related liabilities should be.

In conclusion, Aye for just Phase 1.

Cheers!...

Milos

Hide replies

Fvrb...FVGn

2nd Feb '24

@GATOTECH

Thanks for the support Milos - to be clear this funding only covers phase 1 - the integration of Brale and the Glo Dollar partnership / issuance.

Kusama / Polkadot / community stablecoins are made possible through this intital work, but are not within the scope of this proposal.

we see no benefits on the "white label" approach of repackaging same product into Polkadot or Kusama branding, just increased dilution, added complexity and maybe fostering confusion on where the tech dev & support efforts and related liabilities should be.

Any further progress in this direction would need to address your concerns - and others (both Kusama and Polkadot are trademarked for example) - we can push this debate to another day.

Ultmately we believe there will be many hundreds if not thousands of stablecoins in the next few years, fulfilling many roles and ultimately creating the on-ramps for most people to interface with digtal assets.

GqC3...m8Jj

3rd Feb '24

Voted Nay

Disregarding my personal qualms about Decent Partners, my professional assessment of this proposal is that it is far too much money for such a straightforward implementation.

I see only $50k set aside for the actual LP which is ~20% of the total spend. And $25,000 is going to DP for... what exactly? Another 10% referral commission, I see. Yet when you watch the AAG clip, it's clear that Brale and Glo have not at all been professionally briefed on the technicals of Asset Hub and Kusama. I don't even think Rich knows how LPs and asset conversions work on AH, let alone have the ability to research and advise these teams on the best way to integrate.

Let's just assume an absurd MM requirement of $100k (way more than what is needed for a $50k pool). Let's also assume a 1:1 backing of Glo on top of the KSM in the pool ($25k). That's $175k ($100k MM + $50k LP + $25k backing) going directly into supporting this asset. That means $75k is being thrown into the wind - fluff to pad the pockets of these guys who say they're going to audit their contracts before deploying on Asset Hub. Like, you guy realize that substrate is not an EVM, right? And we're expected to pay these guys a high premium for this? I'm sorry, but Glo and Brale's licensure and financial experience isn't enough to justify the fluff. And DP is one of the least qualified entities to be brokering this integration.

I recommend reevaluating the costs and presenting something that won't gouge the Treasury for the sake of philanthropy. I also recommend that Brale and Glo find a different ecosystem agent to work with besides Decent Partners.

Discover similar proposals

#509

E5qF...tqrg

Deciding