【ftx tokenized stock】

Consensus: In some models, in order to forward informftx tokenized stockation to the target chain, a consensus must be reached between participants monitoring the source chain.

Shift from a trust-based model to a mortgage model: Although the capital efficiency of mortgage verifiers is much lower, the security of "social contracts" is not enough to protect billions of dollars in user funds. In addition, the fancy threshold signature mechanism does not reduce trust; this group of signers still belongs to a trusted third party. Without collateral, users actually hand over their assets to an external custodian.bitcoin pronto llc jobsChange from a mortgage model to an insurance model: Loss of assets is the last thing users want to encounter. Although verifiers and repeaters of mortgage assets can prevent malicious behavior to a certain extent, the agreement should go further and directly use the confiscated funds to compensate users.

bitcoin koers trend

Expanding the liquidity of the liquidity network: The "liquidity network" can be said to be the fastest bridge for asset transfer, and there are some interesting design trade-offs between trust and liquidity. For example, the liquidity network may be able to use the mortgage verifier model to outsource capital supply, where routing may also be a threshold multi-signature with mortgage liquidity.Bridge aggregation: Although the use of bridges may follow the law of exponential for a specific asset, an aggregator like Li Finance can improve the experience of developers and end users.Nowadays, many GameFi projects continue to emerge, and provide a variety of participation methods and play-to-earn and pledge functions. So, how to judge which projects can be held for a long time and can add value? How to find potential NFT agreements?The calculation of agreement income is the focus of value investment.First of all, let's take a look at what is the agreement income? What is the difference with income?

Let me talk about the definition of revenue. Revenue measures the return of all participants, that is, the total cost paid to the contract supplier. For example, the fees paid to liquidity providers in AMM, the transaction fees of decentralized exchanges, and the amount of interest on the lending platform in DeFi. Revenue is obtained by charging a rate to the total flow of the agreement. Simply put, revenue refers to the total fees paid by end users of blockchain or decentralized applications. These revenues will eventually be distributed to token holders, liquidity holders and protocol libraries.GMV (Gross merchandise volume) refers to the total flow of the agreement, which represents the transaction volume of the blockchain or the transaction volume and borrowing volume of decentralized applications. For decentralized exchanges, GMV is the total transaction volume, and for lending agreements, GMV is the total borrowing volume.Uniswap's agreement income needs to be added to V2 and V3, because the agreement fee structure of v2 and v3 is different. The income generated by Uniswap is transferred to retained earnings to maintain Uniswap's ecology and operations, or passed to UNI holders through a destruction mechanism similar to MarkerDao.

Through this article, we have a deeper understanding of how agreements work and the value they generate. Next, let's talk about the role of agreement income in project analysis. Generally, agreement income can be used for asset evaluation, in a comparable analysis to assist investors in judging which projects are undervalued or overvalued. It mainly adopts three indicators: market-to-sales ratio P/S (market value to income ratio), price-to-earnings ratio P/E (market value to earnings ratio), etc. Although these indicators are not the absolute best judgment criteria, they are very helpful in comparing NFT projects of the same type.In traditional finance, the P/E ratio is the ratio of the stock price to the company’s earnings. As a measure of how many years it takes for a company to obtain its market value, the P/E ratio reflects to a certain extent investors’ expectations of a company’s future profitability. In the blockchain world, the P/E ratio is the ratio of market value to earnings. It can reflect the expectation of future income and cash flow, one of the tools to measure the efficiency of assets, and it can also be used as an indicator when comparing projects.About #click to browse

This research report belongs to Mint Ventures' # series scanning series. Compared with the #深研报 series which conducts comprehensive analysis of individual projects, the focus of #Scan series articles is to focus on the development trend of the search, and the horizontal comparison of the growing projects. From the above, we can see the unique dynamics and potential projects in the business.Focus

bitcoin koers trend

About #click to browseThis issue# focuses on topics of concern, especially the new public chain camp and the Ethereum camp to report on the development and game trends of the project.The story project is one of the most important in the history of the Defi field, with a long history of a large number of white horse-level projects, such as the early days of Aave and Compound MakerDAO. With the rapid development of the new public chain, a large number of introduction projects scattered in the new public chain and multiple chains have emerged.In addition to the differentiation of the deployment of public chains, the business types of lending projects have evolved from basic lending and stable currency lending to new businesses such as leveraged mining lending with targeted scenarios. In addition, credit lending mainly for institutional-level customers, risk grading agreements derived from existing lending agreements, and interest rate derivatives are also gradually growing.

Although many loan projects have mature business models and abundant cash flow income, there is still huge room for innovation in this industry, and it is still possible to give birth to new giants such as Aave. It is precisely because of this that lending projects are still one of the key directions of the DeFi entrepreneurial team.After scanning the newly born projects in the past 2 months, we selected 4 more representative loan projects for key analysis. They either broke out rapidly in business or had unique mechanism innovations. Through this research Report, we try to answer the following questions:What is the actual business situation of these projects?What are their product positioning, mechanism or token design innovations?

For those fast-growing projects, what are the sources of growth and how sustainable are they?The track value of the loan business

词严义正网

Like the trading platform, the lending project is also the basic liquidity layer of the crypto world. It plays the role of a bank in the crypto world. Its essence is to coordinate the supply and demand of funds from multiple parties and match liquidity across periods. The business ceiling of this track will expand simultaneously with the expansion of the scale of the encryption business.On the other hand, the demand for matching funds is long-term, and there is no doubt about the sustainability of this track. Although the current funding needs for encrypted lending mainly come from investment leverage, arbitrage, and short-term capital turnover, with the progress of compliance, the channel between the traditional world and encrypted finance will eventually be opened, and the real-world collateral ( The introduction of lending platforms such as real estate and corporate credits, and issuing loans to non-crypto players through stablecoins are all things that are gradually happening, which will bring more room for development to the industry.

Whether as entrepreneurs, investors or ordinary users in this industry, the track of crypto lending is far from the final form. There are still a large number of new products and rich investment opportunities worth looking forward to.As of September 16, 2021, Defi's total TVL has hit a new high since May, reaching 180 billion U.S. dollars. Although the proportion of borrowed TVL has declined, it still occupies the bulk, with a TVL of approximately US$50 billion.In terms of business volume, the established projects Aave, Compound and MakerDAO still firmly occupy the top three positions, and their TVL accounts for more than 70% of the entire lending market.However, the rise of emerging lending projects is also amazing. The top ten projects in TVL include Anchor ($3.12 billion) on Terra, Benqi ($1.23 billion) on the avalanche agreement, and Qubit ($400 million) on BSC. Unlike the big three lending giants that originated in Ethereum, these fast-growing lending forces all come from Ethereum’s competitors, which is the hottest narrative at the moment-the new public chain.What is even more surprising is that in addition to the earlier launch time of Anchor (in March this year), the official launch time of the other two projects is only less than one month.In terms of the type of lending business, whether it is the number of projects or the amount of funds, basic lending projects account for a higher proportion, followed by leveraged mining lending projects, and other relatively new ones such as risk-graded interest rate products. The business volume is currently relatively small.

Project StatusProduct launch time: August 24, 2021

Qubit is a decentralized currency market that uses a mainstream borrowing capital pool model. Qubit's development and operation team is the team behind Pancakebunny-Mound, which was first deployed on BSC, and there are plans for multi-chain expansion in the future.Project Features

The main features of Qubit compared to other basic lending projects are:Its token QBT can increase the rate of return of deposit users after lock-up, which is called "Boost" function

Qubit is part of Mound’s product matrix, and Mound’s products are highly combinableQubit does not support lightning loan functionBusiness conditionsBusiness data

Token value captureCore function: revenue acceleration

Up to now, the main function of QBT is to obtain qScore after lock-up. Through qScore, deposit users can accelerate their deposit income (from the increase in QBT deposit subsidies).This mechanism is similar to Curve's Locker mechanism. Curve's Locker function and economic model consolidate its original competitive advantage and increase the switching cost of liquidity providers and investors. It is a very eye-catching design. However, when the mechanism is applied to a loan agreement, will it still have a good effect? The author remains skeptical about this.

First of all, the reason why some people are willing to lock up the position of Curve's token CRV for a long time after buying it is caused by Curve's strong position in the stable asset business chain and the competition for the governance power of Curve by multiple participants. Because governance power on the Curve platform means two core resources: the baton of liquidity and the accelerator of revenue.Since the issuer of stable consideration assets (stable currency, stETH and other pledge certificates and renBTC and other BTC cross-chain assets are stable consideration assets), they have great requirements on the stability and transaction depth of their operating assets, so they choose Curve to list. Assets and attracting market-making liquidity are very rigid requirements, which creates a strong position of Curve relative to asset operators, which is determined by the business positioning of its Top1 stable asset exchange platform.

In terms of the expansion of asset lending scenarios, the demand from asset operators is far less strong, which results in a large number of less demanders for Qubit governance rights, and the overall lock-up willingness is difficult to reach the level of Curve.In addition to the revenue acceleration function, QBT currently has no other functional scenarios, and there is no QBT repurchase or dividend mechanism for the borrowing spread income of the Qubit platform.On the whole, QBT tokens are currently weak in capturing the overall economic value of the platform.risk control

Qubit does not have a special design for risk control. It basically adopts a method similar to the mainstream lending agreement Aave. Each mortgageable asset has two types: LTV (Loan-to-Value, borrowing ratio) and liquidation threshold (Liquidation Threshold). The main parameters, the former determines the upper limit ratio of funds that can be lent for a fixed-value collateral, and the latter determines when the debt/collateral comes to the ratio, the liquidation window will be opened.However, the current borrowing ratio of all Qubit assets is consistent with the liquidation line, instead of Aave's method of using the liquidation line to be higher than the borrowing ratio.

Qubit's LTV and clearing line parameters (data not updated), source: Qubit documentAt present, the borrowing rate of most assets on Qubit is 60%, which is slightly higher than the initial 50%. While this reduces the risk, it also reduces the pledger's capital utilization efficiency to some extent, especially the mortgage rate of all stablecoin assets is only 60%. There is still a lot of room for optimization of the overall parameters.

In terms of contract security, Qubit only received an audit report from the Peckshield family before it went live in August, which was slightly thin, and the oracle used Chainlink.The total deposits and TVL growth rate of Qubit was very fast since the launch of Qubit. The product's data board function is complete, the product interaction is smooth, and the interface is more beautiful, but overall there are not many innovations. With the continued decline of currency prices and the dilution of subsidies by funds, the current decline in the TVL of the project is also very obvious. It is worth noting that, compared with other lending project tokens that capture the cash flow of the agreement as the core source of value, Qubit's tokens are not currently linked to the project’s profit. The only function is to increase the deposit’s tokens through lock-up. Subsidies, which also caused the intrinsic value of project tokens to weaken, and the high inflation of tokens further aggravated the selling pressure of tokens.

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC#

Mark Suster

Written by

2x entrepreneur. Sold both companies (last to salesforce.com). Turned VC looking to invest in passionate entrepreneurs 〞 I*m on Twitter at @msuster

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC, the largest and most active early-stage fund in Southern California. Snapchat: msuster

Mark Suster

Written by

2x entrepreneur. Sold both companies (last to salesforce.com). Turned VC looking to invest in passionate entrepreneurs 〞 I*m on Twitter at @msuster

Both Sides of the Table

Perspectives of a 2x entrepreneur turned VC at @UpfrontVC, the largest and most active early-stage fund in Southern California. Snapchat: msuster