I am relatively new to participating in any sort of governance forums, but I propose the adding the LINK token as collateral on Radiant. The LINK token has a fanatical following, and with its fairly stable price (in terms of USD), I propose it be possible to be used as collateral on Radiant. It need not be interest bearing, but simply allow for LINK holders (who never sell their LINK) to leverage their holdings through Radiant stablecoin loans.
Good to go with LINK
2 Likes
I oppose this typer of thinking because there is no justification to just add additional tokens to use for collateral (especially when there are already other sites where you can stake them). It is precisely because project cross-leverage with tokens they can not determine or control the true value of that causes one failed project (or exchange) to bring down multiple others in a domino effect. Is there anything special about ChainLink that adds value to the Radiant platform – I don’t see any?
4 Likes
Hi @b_cc, one of the main considerations besides security is the potential economic impact. When adding new assets to the money market, the DAO should consider allocating emissions to that asset, which may require re-assigning emissions allocation points on the current collateral, thus decreasing the competitiveness of the yields. In the near future, the DAO should consider adding blue-chip level collateral without allocating RDNT emissions to those assets since this could be one avenue towards generating incremental platform fees for dLP (Radiant locked liquidity).
4 Likes
agree, LINK is an ecosystem and DEFI must
1 Like
I agree with @smcag comments. I think we should have a first principles framework for any collateral is added, rather than people just proposing their bags.
That framework needs to incorporate security consideration of oracle manipulation for low liquidity assets, as we’ve seen the risks with low liquidity coins for competing money markets like Aave, Lodestar etc.
Otherwise the framework should consider:
- decentralisation of holders
- market cap / low liquidity
Personally I think a KEY differentiator for Radiant is “hard assets” and “real yield”, so I think we should restrict supported collateral to stablecoins, plus possibly the Layer 1/Layer 2 network supported chains (ie ETH, BNB, ARB, OP, MATIC whatever).
Long-tail is a very crowded market, and while LINK is essential to DeFi once you support LINK its a very slippery slope. Lets stick to hard and real as a differentiation strategy in this very competitive market we’re in.
2 Likes
Thank you for recognizing the greatest differentiator for Radiant is real yield on hard assets! There are many meme and shit coins out there that have no real value and the protocols don’t last. You can also look at the past year and see how many interrelated projects came down when one leg failed. Some failures were security, some were rug pulls, some were management theft, etc. Whatever the reason for failure was, one usually brings down others when everyone is relying on a particular asset to maintain its value. Radiant has real inheriant value and we should be extra careful about what we want too allow for staking. I think restricting to “Blue Chips” isn’t definitive enough, and I think the community should work towards development of strict guidelines to consider any other assets. That way, when an individual or another protocol wants to have us consider a particular token it can be clearly evaluated. Absolutely no unaudited projects should every be considered for staking, but as supernoveau said, market cap, liquidity, number of chains supported on, decetralization, and other factors are very important too.
1 Like
I agree with @RadiantRoger and @supernoveau, slow and steady wins the race. As @supernoveau said, we could possibly add the coin for each chain we add. That’s a lot of coins to support already for the future.
1 Like