Referendum #1122
Treasury Spend #50

#50·*UPDATED* Proposal for the Polkadot Community to Earn RWA Yield on Idle Stablecoins via Centrifuge

Treasury
14d ago
24 Comments
Paid
  • Content
  • AI Summary
Reply
Up 1
Share
Request
3MUSDC
Beneficiary
This spend has been paid. Check the beneficiary
  • Metadata
  • Timeline2
Comments

Previous discussion links are 404 for me.

Reply
Up

Thank you for your proposal.

First, we would like to echo Oliver's comment on the proper redirection of the discussion link on Subsquare. The Polkassembly version works well but the Subsquare version requires a link fix.

Now the important stuff.
We are very happy to see the inclusion of RWA and t-bills into the treasury management as it is a very secure and regulated way to increase yield of treasury stable assets. Alternative and more risky approaches like on-chain lending have already had incidents in the past (Euler hack nuking Angle's treasury), so doing it on a regularized manner is paramount in this case.

Our main question is about the fees that the Polkadot Community Foundation will be taking for being the entity responsible enacting this referendum. Anemoy's fees are present at 0.15% yearly but the cost of the Polkadot Community Foundation is missing for now. This information becomes important because for 3M at 5% annual yield (average of the 0 through 6 month maturity bills) is 150k in a year so this information is important to know how much of the yield will be required for the payment of the PCF services. Also, we have take in mind that many analysts forecast that the interest rates will lower soon however this decrease is projected to take months (5.4% to 3.5% in 18 months for the 3 month t-bills according to JP Morgan).

Reply
Up

Hey fam. This proposal is a brilliant move—using USDC to earn yield while supporting Polkadot's ecosystem projects is a win-win situation. Plus, it's exciting to see Polkadot making strides in the real-world asset space, setting the stage for future growth and partnerships. We are definitely on the AYE side.

Reply
Up

This might be a small aside, but I think that support from the Polkadot Treasury should also require some "give back" to the Polkadot community directly.

In this case, I want to see: https://forum.polkadot.network/t/ux-proposal-consensus-based-address-formats/6072/51

Which is that Centrifuge should update their address format to match the Polkadot Address format and be a leader among the Parachains in making a better experience for users in Polkadot.

Reply
Up

Reducing the opening deployment by 50% shows thoughtfulness and a commitment to long-term collaboration by Centrifuge.

So cool that the beneficiary has always been the Polkadot Community Foundation and that they can be instructed to send half back to the treasury.

Looking forward to seeing this deployment and a future strategy for ongoing yield generation with this great ecosystem project.

Reply
Up

The recipient of this proposal is a hardcoded 3/5 multisig.

That means that this multisig cannot change users without changing the address.

The proper setup to use in Polkadot is an anonymous proxy backed by a multisig which allows the multisig itself to change if needed.

As is, this proposal does not seem to be set up by a team that understands the nuisances of Polkadot, or that these Polkadot accounts are even active, or represent trusworthy members of our ecosystem.

image.png

Reply
Up 1