search

trustline-inc / probity

A transparent asset-based lending protocol implemented for the EVM.
https://docs.trustline.co
Other
3 stars 1 forks source link

replace aurei with usd #315

Closed mrosendin closed 2 years ago

mrosendin commented 2 years ago

this PR replaces Aurei with US dollars to ensure that the stablecoin never de-pegs. Equity position collateral for USD stablecoins can be USD itself or short-term US Treasury bills (for example, the 3 month t-bill).

shine2lay commented 2 years ago

I think having name and symbol that coincide with fiat currency can be very misleading, instead you can maybe call it USDP(probity) or some other similar symbol to differentiate it from the actual fiat currency

mrosendin commented 2 years ago

It's a sticky issue, but here's how I see it:

We are trying to create a currency that has the same value as USD. So let's just call it USD. And we'll explain our methodology - backed by FDIC-insured bank deposits and US Treasury bills or whatnot. What differentiates us from actual USD is the governance address. To put it in XRPL terms, the issuer of this USD coin is the governance address.

The owning / issuing address is the identifier for how people should differentiate between different USD ERC20 tokens. But they should all use USD as the symbol IMO, as long as they meet the regulator guidelines. We shouldn't be forced into using branded name symbols, because the namespace will get filled up quickly. For example, there is already a USDP (Paxos USD).

We could do a branded symbol if we want, like USD Probity, but IMO, it's the web/mobile client's problem to ensure the user understands that it is Probity USD and not Paxos USD.

shine2lay commented 2 years ago

I still think using simply USD is not the way to go, because even if they are backed 1:1, they are not USD themselves, therefore, it's misleading, re the namespace getting filled up: I don't see that as a problem just as stock space is the same. If we keep USD, i could see an argument that we are minting US dollars, which from my understanding is very much illegal to do so, while minting private currencies are legal.

mrosendin commented 2 years ago

I'm not sure what you mean. Of course a USD token isn't USD itself. USD tokens are just liabilities that are equal to $1 per unit. No one is going to confuse it. Everyone understands that USD token issuers are subject to the same liquidity concerns as banks. Some USD token issuers are more sketchy than others. It's the same way with the banking system.

Re: stock tickers - those are highly differentiated offerings/companies with varying business models whereas tokenized currencies are more simple and have little to distinguish from each other, other than the reliability of each issuer. The namespace presents less options because every ticker would be a variation of USD_ or _USD - only 54 unique combinations before you have to use 5-letter symbols. So from that perspective I'm not really seeing why it should matter; rather it's the issuing address that matters, and we all just refer to it as USD.

If we keep USD, i could see an argument that we are minting US dollars, which from my understanding is very much illegal to do so, while minting private currencies are legal.

So basically, you think people will claim that the token is a counterfeit of USD? Going back to the first paragraph, the tokens are IOUs/liabilities just the same as bank account balances are. It's not a private currency because it's not trying to act as an alternative to USD. The issuing entity (gov) is the one responsible for redeeming the USD token.

shine2lay commented 2 years ago

So basically, you think people will claim that the token is a counterfeit of USD?

Yes, I can see that as a possibility however small of a chance it is. especially we have functions like mint and burn in our system somewhere. There are parts of the system where extra stablecoin can be created to temporarily stabilize the system and take on additional system debt without any backing.

re ticker: I don't see the problem of having 5 symbols in the ticker, or more.

I still don't see why we shouldn't just call it some version of USD like USDT and others have.

mrosendin commented 2 years ago

This stablecoin system is going to be used by Linqto, and used by accredited investors. There is no chance that people say it's counterfeit because I will have them agree to terms and conditions that outline exactly what they should expect in terms of risk.

mrosendin commented 2 years ago

Also just because everyone else is doing it (USDT, USDP, TUSD, BUSD, LUSD, USDC, etc.) doesn't make it right.

If they follow the regulatory guidelines, then the currency symbol should be USD and the name string in the contract should be " USD". The only reason why companies are having unique symbols is for publicity and marketing. Once it reaches a saturation point people will realize it's really just USD as far as they're concerned.

shine2lay commented 2 years ago

I am okay with the solution of having the name string in contract " USD" that seems solve the issue I have.