#13

When are we going to be able to vote for this?

#14

Made a new account just to show my support for this proposal. Its absurd the limit is so low especially considering how gas prices are & how much we have grown. I think that dai would be best since it is decentralized and not exposed to the type of risk usdc/etc/etc are exposed to

#15

I do not see the need to raise the limit. There isnt enough users doing smaller amounts as it is. Yes i know gas is high, but to switch stable to eth, tornado cash it, withdraw, then switch back to stable isnt that big of deal.

I will probably vote yes on increasing DAI amount. But, i also thing this costs the devs / relayers money to set up that isnt coming in on any stable coin pool that we have already.

#16

Because it costs more than a third of your deposit just for transaction fees.

That defeats the purpose of stable coins in the first place.

In moments of extremely high volatility like the one we are living in right now, you could deposit 100 eth at $1,700 and withdraw it a day after at $1,400 per ETH and lose $30,000 just like that.

IMO this is one of the best times to increase the DAI limit and to look into adding a WBTC pool.

1 Like
#17

@Taeja Your proposed workaround involves 4 transactions instead of 2. This is not likely to economize gas at all. 1 or 2 larger pools for Dai will probably allow for a much greater use in the present climate.

This proposal is the main thing stopping me from selling my Torn right now. Let’s get a contract made!

2 Likes
#18

I agree with both your points, and as I already said above that would defeat the whole purpose of having stable coins in the first place.

It would also cost the same if not more if you were to submit 4 transaction in the order Taeja explained.

We are lucky to have devs who listen to our opinions and ideas (apparently it’s not like this with most ethereum projects these days…).

I’m confident we will see this come to reality sooner than we all think.

#19

There would probably not be many $1M DAI deposits to mix funds safely. Eventually this will change though. When it does, I’ll fully support it

For starters, we should definitely start with $10k and $100k DAI pools

1 Like
#20

$1MM is too high, I don’t even think there are enough DAI holders with that many DAI to make it worth the effort.

$100k is by far the best option IMHO.

It also gives users who can’t deposit 100 ETH a way to deposit an amount in between 10 and 100 ETH (in USD value).

The more I think about this the more it makes sense to just do it.

#21

Let’s get this poll going! It’s clear that there will be sufficient demand for 10k and 100k DAI pools. I propose we also consider cDAI or aDAI in order to incentivise longer deposit periods.

1 Like
#22

Makes sense. I would 100% vote in favor of more DAI pools.

1 Like
#23

I’m not sure what the process is to add a new pool. I’m sure everyone is waiting to hear from @Rezan at this point and vote if there will be a governance pool.

If I’m not mistaken the 10,000 DAI contract is already live and has been live for 1 year but I don’t know if it still compatible with the current ecosystem.

1 Like
#24

Agreed, but I don’t think USDT or USDC are good long-term options because of their ability to blacklist.

DAI is the best option… for now but I think we should start considering other stablecoins as well. Because DAI is overcollateralized there is a limit of how much it can expand.

1 Like
#25

I say we start off with DAI to see if demand is also followed by volume and try that out for a couple months and then start trying to explore new options.

As of right now we are forced to use DAI since it’s the biggest and most liquid decentralized stable coin and there also seems to be quite some demand for it here.

One thing I’m against is adding uni-v2 pool tokens like someone was suggesting in a different post. I believe it’s extremely pointless even if it’s for TORN-WETH.

1 Like
#26

The 10k DAI is not live, yet. Only 100 DAI and 1k DAI

#27

DAI may be good for now, especially for the liquidity it has and its permissionless nature (with the exception of USDC-backed vaults). But like USDT & USDC, I think it’s a step in the evolution of stablecoins. MakerDAO is essentially a bank issuing debt that is created when it’s overcollateralized. Because of this, there are inherent limits with DAI.

If we want to think long-term, we should seriously consider adding algo-stablecoins like FRAX to Tornado. FRAX has been able to maintain it’s peg even through extreme volatility and I know for the fact their community and devs are very interested in supporting this integration in every way possible.

#28

I don’t know FRAX specifically (it looks like it’s dependent upon chainlink oracles :frowning_face:), but the criticism you mention are correct:

  • DAI is collateralized by permissioned tokens that could get frozen
  • DAI is debt, and there is a debt ceiling (limit to amount of possible DAI)
  • DAI is the first step in ~permissionless stablecoins. There will be others
#29

FRAX actually moved away from chainlink oracles and are only using TWAPs. They will use Curve’s TWAP’s soon which many consider the most decentralized (see here https://twitter.com/fraxfinance/status/1360755848620830721?s=21).

FRAX’s goal is to be the endgame for stablecoins. The devs and community understand that privacy is an ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL property for a proper working stablecoin, hence their willingness to prioritize Tornado Cash support.

I suggest reading this article, * Frax will eat the stablecoin world* if you want to learn more about FRAX’s future ramifications (https://endofthechain.com/frax-finance-stablecoin/)

2 Likes
#30

Never heard of this stable coin before, I will be taking a look. I’m not a huge supporter of faith based stables, I’d rather have something that has collateral even if it can be locked (which is never gonna happen since they aren’t doing anything against their ToS).

#31

False - even if DAI doesn’t directly violate their ToS, Tornado.cash (among a multitude of other dapps) as a proxy can be used as justification to lock funds

In Coinbase’s ToS, they refer to USDC as “E-Money” and state:

Prior to redeeming E-Money from your E-Money Wallet, we may conduct checks for the purposes of preventing fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing and other financial crimes, and as required by applicable law. This may mean you are prevented or delayed from withdrawing E-Money until those checks are completed to our reasonable satisfaction in order to comply with our regulatory requirements.

Is it likely to happen? No. If it happens even once, what is the damage? Critically devastating

Ultimately, I agree - better to have collateralize DAI than anything else right now. But food for thought above just so we’re not blindly accepting the risk ahead of us

1 Like
#32

You could argue that Maker is holding said “E-Money” and not the end consumer of DAI.

So we are basically behind a shield no matter what.

I don’t personally think there is a single chance it happens but being paranoid isn’t a bad thing with stuff like this, you never know.

1 Like