4) I'm not talking about who did what. I'm also not talking about their respective tokens.
Each token has some price/market cap/etc. I'm not looking at those, and so don't know how this would apply to that anyway.
This is about the protocols.
Conversation
11) I'd love to see AMMs branch out (like did!) into differentiation; and I'd love to see more types of pools people could use instead of assuming that pool == x*y=k AMM.
And I've love variants on rebases: not pure splits but a treasury managing the new tokens.
3
2
30
What's your opinion on protocol tokens when it comes to lending/borrowing?
Should the tokens (like COMP) be purely governance, or should they be part of (and unify) the markets in a protocol?
1
1
2
Replying to
I think they should be part of markets probably? But that doesn't mean they necessarily have to be the backbone of them.
That's the side I've fallen on as well - so far.
There might be some utility to using the central token as a store of value to hedge risks from multiple pools against each other, but that is hard to do without reintroducing centralization of risk.
2

