CIP-2: Solver Rewards

Governance Closed Proposals
, ,
3

I agree that the token list proposed may not be ideal. For example it contains sEUR which is very illiquid and thus “risky”. When it comes to narrowing down the tokens in the list, I think careful research should be done and possibly also having a fixed set of rules for a token to be included there. For example:

To be supported for internal balances the token must be:

  1. Sufficiently Paired: exist within a liquidity source paired directly with a “base token” where base token is a very short fixed list of trusted tokens (say for example { WETH, USDC, DAI, USDT, WBTC, GNO, CoW }

  2. Sufficiently Deep: have at least T total USD in a Liquidity source natively supported by the protocol.

  3. Sufficiently Supported be in the intersection of at least N token lists from tokenlist.org (the list suggested by @netrunner.eth)

These are just a few ideas. Without having looked very closely, I can say that sEUR likely fails 2/3 of the above.

I might also suggest making the list somewhat dynamic - since some of these conditions above can change from one block to the next.

4 Likes