Locked based anti-liquidation pool with a redesigned token emission rate on it

it seems at least it takes by the end of the year until the protocol becomes fully operational I think it will be great if the protocol implements an anti-liquidation pool that charges borrowers with HBB based on the chosen level of protection and amount of the protected asset
Team lock all of their portion of HBB tokens in an anti-liquidation pool until Hubble protocol becomes a fully operational product and this pool becomes supported by other assets that come from other users even after that, putting some value-evaluation emission mechanism on unlocking the tokens from these pools
I think that will be a trust maker move from the team side that brings more Loyal locked based stackers to support this pool
if it contains big VC investors on seed and other rounds too, it makes an overtrust move
besides the trust maker effect, the emission rate of these pools must be redesigned to balance money printing and its evaluated current value.
one negative effect of this pool will be the selling pressure after the protection mechanism triggers
in my opinion, monthly based printing is an awful mechanism for example in the BTC scenario despite growing demand for it, it half its emission on time
I think, in Defi, the protocol’s LTV is the most important parameter to be used as supply and demand evaluation that can be used in emission rate
token emission rate should be controlled on many feedback based parameters like averaging LTV during a timeline, time, and many other factors
instead, Team has had some percentage of protocol revenues and absolutely accumulated HBBs that charged for the anti-liquidation service
more clear token emission mechanism on the other controlled sections
appreciated to hear your thought on the monthly token emission mechanism, the possibility of implementing this anti-liquidation pool and it’s trust maker effect on new investors

1 Like

This is an interesting idea I havent really heard elsewhere. Putting together a list of questions/comments :point_down:

  • How would the levels of protection vary for borrowers?

  • We’ve teased the idea of implementing liquidation protection with a premium fee for those who prefer not to self manage their loan, but ultimately decided we’re not at that stage yet to need to charge users for extra services in general

  • Could you elaborate on what would create an ‘overtrust’ move - doesnt seem like having big VC investors involved in this would be a bad thing? perhaps I am misunderstanding this part

Ultimately I think its a unique idea worth considering, although I should reiterate Im not sure how keen the team is to charge borrowers fees for ‘premium’ services etc. I could be wrong though!
Also just curious what would entail a ‘fully operational protocol’ :thinking:

Appreciate you putting this together into a forum discussion post. Hope to hear some more thoughts on this

You’re right, it’s too early to charge on services
even it first needs to evalute the importance of anti-liquadation to the borrowers. i think big borrowers manage their loans manualy
I think it’s better there is such pool on sides and users that activated this option will be charged if their loan trigers using of this pool
but the amont of charge needs thought more
about big vc’s, i don’t mean they are bad actors. actualy they are the first ones that fund raised the project on it’s early stage. in my opinion at this market condition supportive sign from major players can bring more loyale investors if it get on news.
thanks for this discusion
pls close this discusion. after making more thought on it I try to put it a proper format

sounds good! looking forward to your newest proposal

1 Like