Sometimes there is a huge arbitrage possibility between the sc redeeming and pools like curve. This has been up to 6%.
From here my idea originates, people would like to arb ofc, but the faster, the more interesting this does become and the faster the difference is solved.
So my idea to speed this up is an instant or almost instant swap. This brings more risks in terms from arbitraging the sc. And so here comes the second part. Charge a 3% swap fee, 2% goes locked in the sc 1% goes to nsbt holders.
This swap is usefully in 2 scenarios:
people who donât want or canât wait 24 hours and want there waves fast
arbing a difference from 3% or more. Since we had 6% this would still be an easy profit for the arbâer
What does neutrino benefit from it:
we got another way to lock up waves/usdn âforeverâ, this 2% fee paid to the sc.
NSBT fees might go slightly up also when the arb % is quiet high, or when people want to swap big amount of money fast. Itâs like you would have slippage on LPâs, so you will have some âslippageâ on the contract for the impatient.
I believe the arb % will stay lower, since people could make instant profit from a difference bigger then 3%
NOTES:
3% is an example number, if we would need 4% to make it more safe er robust or any other percentage, the same principle could be used.
We should never give the full fast swap fee to nsbt, because the goal is to lock more waves/value, and therefor keeping BR higher ( and this benefits whole neutrino including nsbt)
The cheap swap from 24 hours wait should keep exist.
The one third part for NSBT could be reviewed and even done 1/4th is for nsbt in case from 3% , 2.25% for sc, 0.75% for NSBT. Because they still profit from it, and the sc does even more.
with the price increase of waves + moonfactor the BR increases significantly.
3% for nsbt stakers would make the community happier and would certainly make the market price reach the contract price faster because higher profits = higher demand. Or 2.5% for nsbt and 0.5% for SC.
in my opinion it is unnecessary that most of the profits go to the contract, we have already fed the contract by issuing nsbt and it is impossible to reach the max supply.
Instant swap is necessary for catching up the market and stabilize the usdn price on market. I do like liquidty and your proposal can bring liquidty for arb. and also support neutrino reserve with fees.
Arbing USDN with 6% is something hmm⌠extreme. With USDN growth such things will never happen, and even 1% will be a huge thing. So imho implementation of swap boosting for additional charge make no sense in long term.
The history learned us we had many days above 3%.
But even if you would guess this almost never would happen, I can see people use the function like they would use a marketsell on exchanges and lose some % on it.
Besides this, 3% was an example, could also be a 2% fee, if you think we will barely see this arb possibility.
On another note, arbing was told as a need to keep it 1$, so why wouldnât we make it faster for people willing to pay premiums?
Many traders would pay premiums, if they know they could make more profit then this 2or3% in fee.
When USDN becomes bigger, we might see more people who canât or donât want to use traditional exchanges/ kycâed systems. The sc allows in this case for a swap to exit usdn, and I would gladly pay a 3% fee to exit usdn, if that means I donât need to use a CEX. Or when I canât use a CEX.
I agree, but I think I was unable to express what I meant.
We have a factor that increases the BR called ânsbtâ and it needs attractiveness to reach the contract price. So I think working on this product that we already have has to be a priority, so I think that if there are fees, most should be aimed at leveraging the first product: ânsbtâ
If nsbt is attractive the demand for it will increase and the faster it will reach the contract price and this will increase the BR.
I think your idea is good but it should be 50%/50% or 75%nsbt / 25%SC etcâŚ
otherwise we would not need nsbt, just allocate all fees to the contract.