Some lending systems could allow borrowing LP tokens, for example, recently allowed to use LP tokens as collaterals: defirate.com/aave-uniswap-m
Conversation
Well, that's why the LP tokens have to be staked for some period of time.
2
1
Of course this creates capital inefficiency, which means additional direct costs
2
3
This is a really tough topic!
1) you still lose if you borrow them if you were overcollateralized, but not as much
2) I think it's a real problem!
3) This is one of the reasons that 's governance is restricted to things that can't steal or destroy Serum.
1
1
3
How do you intend to govern the token bridge between ETH and SOL?
1
OR can distinguish between real and fake blockchain histories on-chain via preprogrammed smart contracts, so you can just let everyone go wild claiming what happened and let the program find the real history.
1
(just have the program filter out invalid chains and then choose the longest remaining)
So the "consensus" mechanism here is "if any single person is honest then the right thing happens" which is pretty sweet.
E.g. you yourself can guarantee it by submitting the real history.
2
2
And if there is a chain split on SOL and both things happen?
1
Yeah chain splits are nasty here, and there isn't really a *best* answer.
Note, though, that Solana doesn't really have competing chains the way PoW often does unless there's a real breakdown/malicious actors/etc.
1
So the likely answer is:
a) things before are fine
b) tx's during the fork are messy af
c) once the dust settles you create a new bridge program if needed and people transition over (anyone can create one but people will migrate to the right one unless there's a fork).
Yea, I'm generally concerned about validator sets from non-ETH chains being incentivized to steal assets locked in ETH bridges.
If the txns sent during the fork are more valuable than the SOL rewards for the fork period (including slashing penalties) then it might be worth it.
1
2
3
Yup there's a worry if:
a) value locked >> value of SOL staked by miners
b) you also get > 2/3 of Solana stake weight to be malicious
That would mean billions locked and also that the Solana validators were burning down the business.
But yeah, that would suck.
1
1
Show replies