Borrow demand is 25% of the total deposits. We have a déficit and need to pay much more money that we are getting in borrowing income.
We have to pay more than $2 Billion USTs and we only have less than $1 Billion. So, in order to slow Deposits increase (only temporaly, when the 1 to 1 relación we stop) we need to put a small barrier and ask to hold and lock a small percentage of the UST that are going to deposit in ANC tokens.
We could start slow, with the 2.5%. That means, if we want to deposit $1,000 UST we need to invest only $25 worth on ANC.
THIS METHOD WILL NOT ONLY SLOW THE PACE OF DEPOSITS, BUT INCREASE ANC TOKEN VALUE/PRICE AND BOOTSTRAP/PUMP DEMAND OF BORROWING AS ANC IS USED AS INCENTIVE FOR BORROWERS.
i think what might be better is we do this but tie it to a percentage value of yield
so as to not discourage earners completely
so if you have say 5% of your deposit in Anc you will get 100% of the 19.5% yield
4% Anc … 90% of 19.5% yield
0% Anc … 15% yield that would serve as a new baseline for all earners
much cleaner this way as it feels more like an incentive as suppose to a penalty
Sounds fair to me.
That way, Deposits will still Enter and barrier is smaller than the previously discussed.
let’s take a look at prism…we need to find that kind of mechanism…but without breaking aUST…
aUST should continue compounding (perhaps at a lower rate) and the remaining rate could be paid on anc and if you have an amount of ANCs staked…also unstaking anc could be subject to a 21 days delay.
Guys please read the plenty other threads suggesting the same approach, or some variant of it, and the discussion that followed. aUST is a fungible asset, and that’s a good thing, allows us to use it as collateral and some other fun stuff, we can’t have locks or different earn rates with a fungible asset.
Yes, the key is to make it non-fungible. Anchor is a savings protocol. You do not take your savings you have on deposit and use it for something else; it remains on deposit. Savings is not and should not be “fun.”
Or rather, as has been proposed, have a lower APY (I suggest 1/3 of normal APY) fungible aUST (the ‘fun’ in fungible stands for fun ), and then full APY (3x higher) saUST, that is non-fungible. I don’t see any other way for Anchor to offer >10% headline APY without doing some variant of this.
agree with the general concept here, this is called ‘skin in the game’
here video just made articulating my thoughts: ANC Protocol, Largest Lending Protocol, Value Accrual proposal.#crypto #ANC - YouTube
You keep talking about an entirely different protocol, fungibility has been one of the selling points since inception and would be a shame to lose it, capital efficiency is a good thing. Rich people have been doing this at banks since forever, using their assets and deposits as collateral… it’s not about making savings fun, it’s about making your capital as efficient as possible.
Anchor’s source code is open source, ready for the forking… just saying.
There is a big proposal from Jump capital coming on capital controls. This will probably garner most of the major staking holder’s support as they worked with major stakeholders and community members. It will require locking aUST up for greater returns. More to come out on this in the coming weeks.
Where can be found information about this proposal??
The formal proposal hasn’t been made yet.
We have to look into pros and cons, as to how could be implemented.
Right now, what needs is the comments from Community, so in that matter we could know if there could be chances for passing.
As far as I know, the VeANCs proposal for locking your ANCs and increase your vote power is the most developed and have had the most Community support and interaction.
The proposal for asking Depositors to hold ANC in order to have the entire yield returns could seem a good way to improve Anchor mechanics as well ( Even if is temporary).