[AIP - 25] Launch alBTC before Alchemix V2, and alBTC launch parameters

n4n0

Dev-bias here but putting out alBTC before v2 will severely cut down on our resources and push v2 release further behind. So while an alBTC vault could be constructed with the v1 structure I'm opposed to doing so considering all the points already mentioned with regards to migration and code safety.

Edit: superb use of poll mechanics tho!

ov3rkoalafied

n4n0 Please clarify, I was under the impression that V2 ships to audit Nov 1st, at which point it's mostly in the auditor's hands and no longer needs dev resources (though that optimistically assumes no fixes are needed). Technocratic's reply seemed to confirm as much - the list of things it would take away from does not include V2.

n4n0

ov3rkoalafied That might be true for solidity side, but it also needs a frontend. I'm just smelling a rushed UI with possible untested flaws that I'd personally not wanna release. Because as the Nintendo-man said "A rushed game is forever bad" or something like that.

Ferdinand_Fuzzgellan

What's the timeline on V2? If V2 is expected Q4 or early Q1, is adding alBTC going to be that much value add to the protocol's long-term value? Seems like this a nice-to-have release and not a must-have, and it makes me weary that not everyone on the core team is onboard. We've been patient these past few months waiting for V2 so why rush a product release when we're probably close to a V2 release (I think?).

ov3rkoalafied

Ferdinand_Fuzzgellan
Current schedule: V2 ships Nov 1st to Audit, released min 8 weeks later.

Crypton00bEX

This might be the 1st governance proposal that I would vote against.
Perhaps I'm completely wrong, but this situation kinda reminds of the time where the managers want to rush release something new so that they can hit their EoY goals/increase revenue/ show to the higher ups that things are progressing, while the engineers actually disagree: They know that there is little point in doing so and taking extra risk for just a few weeks and it will probably further push back the release of v2, where all effort is currently in.

dasifgb

I'm glad there was a conversation about this. Thanks ov3rkoalafied for putting this together.

There clearly is some near term value to an early alBTC release. However the tradeoffs don't seem worth it:

1) v2 + DAO is what we expect to be the basis of the long term value, so any inhibition to progress on that is very expensive when you compound it over a year +
2) the community cost of a rushed product going awry is extremely high (our existing claim to a novel rug derivative is plenty in my book...)
3) the cost (and psychological toll) of developers working on something they are not comfortable with is also very high

If this were simply an early release of a v2 feature, that would be more appetizing. But if this takes meaningful dev resources, increases pressure on devs, and will be scrapped in v2, the answer is a pretty clear "no" to me.

JonisJon

Audits can take a while (and then some fixes will prob need to be made post-audit) and its quite possible the timeline of the V2 ends up being longer than anyone wants as a result through normal testing and audit related delays.

Because of that, I am in support of launching alBTC before V2 personally, I think it will help bring more TVL and liquidity to alchemix sooner and it will allow for the liquidity to be built up and the market proved out.

yuyoman

Maybe we can use v2 code to a select group of people just using solidity directly to start the vault. Like an alpha version

yuntamoto

Really awesome to see the creative thinking and constructive discussion on this one.

Sounds like we have more to lose, and not much to gain my introducing alBTC with only a few weeks/months lead on v2. I don't like the extra complexity and risk it introduced no a v1 -> v2 migration. We've waited this long (only long in crypto time) for alBTC. My vote is to stick with the patient approach at this point.

If we had this discussion a few months ago, it might have made sense to bring in the big three ahead of v2. Or if we were looking at another 6 months plus until v2, it would be worth considering this step of stepping stone upgrade.

As an aside, I'm also under the impression that alETH is performing very differently than alUSD -- it's easier for people to make a 2:1 calculation on stablecoin value. A 4:1 on a volatile asset is a bit harder to know how to leverage. I'm guessing more integrations with things like spell, curve, ohm, toke, etc is what's really going to help drive alassets.

SilverSloth

Don't be hasty.

alcxftw

Please don't rush this! Project may not be able to suffer another incident like alETH.

Voted against it.

Malaka

alBTC would be useful when demand for BTC goes up, probably almost exclusively for hodler's of BTC products. As we have the merge, potential flippening and such at our doorstep, demand for BTC pegged assets is not really up there yet (like during a halving event). Maybe look to add this next summer/fall if BTC is popular again and has demand? (Honestly with current DeFi scene, I don't see a use case for alBTC at all)

Anyways, we have a much cooler product to focus on. The age of L2's and Sidechain interaction is beginning, but right on its heels is the age of stable coins. We should shore up what alchemix's core product is, something which is about to be in very high demand. Self-paying currency creation events.

I have no idea what roadmap is, but IMO alUSD accepting variable collateral for alUSD needs to be our next strategic focus. With follow ups being expanding to roll-ups/sidechains (if we even want that), or some other way to bring value and stability to the stablecoin ecosystem.

IMIMIM

I see very little upside to an early launch of alBTC relative to the potential risks, when considering how short-lived the entire thing will be. I don't think it's worth it.