Totally - but some of them are a bit of stretch in the first place, would be good to support tokenized projects of blue chip for mainstream adoption, and having two creates great arb options between the blue chip v more diverse indexes
Conversation
I’d also like to vote on funneling 10% of FTX profits to multisig holders. It’s only fair
1
9
It can go with the secret bribery payments Sam apparently sends me.
I think they got lost in the mail for the past 6 months though... gutted postal service or some nonsense.
1
3
Hm so I'm actually pretty confused by DPI.
It has YFI, AVE, UNI, SNX, MKR, COMP, REN, LRC, KNC, BAL, and REP.
I don't understand what metric can get to that index. It seems kind of wacky to me!
e.g. how did REP get there but not UMA/ZRX/NXM/SUSHI/BAND?
5
3
13
Agree its not perfect, but there are pros and cons to the different models.
These are broadly more 'blue chip' projects plus its tokenized which I think is pretty valuable in terms of cross chasm adoption.
1
1
meh agree that it's more blue-chip-y though like I don't think that really applies to REP anymore, or a bunch of their other tokens.
2
4
Maybe here's a way to put it: I think that if you compare the FTX index to DPI, FTX has a *greater* weight on projects that are generally considered to be promising right now than DPI does.
1
There are other differences -- e.g. DPI only has ETH-based DeFi whereas FTX has other chains as well, which is a difference.
And I think this really starts to get closer to the real difference between the indexes.
I don't think it has to do with being blue-chip.
2
2
I think the *real* difference here is whether, at some point, the project received the Official ETH-Maxi Seal of Approval.
Though, like, including YFI but not UNI just seems wacky to me and I don't think really makes sense under any definitions.
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Show replies