Create Supercharged Pools: Community Request - IST/USDT

Community Request Proposal to Create a Supercharged Pool: - IST/USDT

There is already a SuperCharged, SuperFluid pool (#1088) for IST/OSMO with >$500k liquidity, and adding an IST/USDT would be in alignment with the " Create Supercharged Pools: Community Requests" proposal.

The proposal is for a Stablecoin Pairing: IST/USDT 0.05% spread

If there is any concern about adding IST/USDT, please comment.
The current vote already has a 26% turnout (94% Yes), so this would require another Vote.
Target on-chain date: September 13, 2023

@FredRadford I think @JohnnyWyles already has plans on creating a 0.05% spread and 0.01% spread IST/USDT pool. :smiley:

See: Create Supercharged Pools: USDT pairing equivalents

I would also assume that when Noble USDC becomes available a IST/USDC pool would be included on the list of USDC paired supercharged pools.

Since the creation of supercharged pools are being limited to only quote assets at the moment, I wonder if a supercharged IST/ATOM pool would interest liquidity providers and be easier to capitalize with ATOM holders since ATOM (and likely stATOM) is an IST collateral asset and both Axelar and Gravity bridged USDT, USDC, and DAI can be used to mint IST 1:1 using the PSM.

Ive also been wondering lately if it would be beneficial to make IST a quote asset. With ATOM (and likely soon to be stATOM) being an IST collateral asset, there being quite a bit of ATOM capital across several small cap-low volume IBC token in ATOM paired pools that don’t have incentivized OSMO paired pools (e.g. BCNA, CHEQ, LUM, LIKE, etc), thus missing out on the multi-hop discount (which no longer appears not to be active though) if supercharged IST/BCNA, IST/CHEQ, IST/LUM, IST/LIKE, etc would appeal to ATOM/BCNA, ATOM/CHEQ, ATOM/LUM, ATOM/LIKE liquidity providers so that they wouldn’t have to sell their ATOM but use it (or liquid stake it with Stride and use stATOM) to mint IST to provide liquidity to IST paired pools and reduce their exposure to impermanent loss in small-cap low-volume ATOM paired pools. I would think there are some synergies here with IST having the mission of helping boost the interchain economy (in a risk manageable - ie risk-averse manner), The Hub looking to expand the AEZ and increase the adoption of the IBC protocol and number of app chains, Osmosis looking to provide cost-effective stablecoin swapping pools, and USDT and USDC capital being a finite and competition for that capital being highly competitive (e.g. chains like KAVA and Osmosis having to spend a lot of their native tokens as liquidity incentives to attract that capital). I also imagine that being a native IBC stablecoin that through the PSM can be swapped 1:1 for Axelar or Gravity USDC, USDT, or DAI it would provide opptionality to Axelar and Gravity bridged users and stablecoin holders, help manage exposure risks to any one stablecoin or bridge, and help Osmosis remain neutral between stablecoin and bridge usage.

Just some thoughts :smiley:.

Yes, going on chain with the one @RedRabbit33 mentioned on Monday :slight_smile:
I delayed the USDT pairing prop vs the community request one but probably should have put them up at the same time!

So the only reason I didn’t request an IST/USDT pool was because I saw it in the USDT pairing prop discussion thread and thought that was going up first :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

Any who…2 questions:

  • About the IST/OSMO supercharged pool (Pool #1088), and why it is IST/OSMO instead of OSMO/IST like other stablecoin paired supercharged OSMO pools (eg OSMO/DAI, OSMO/USDC, OSMO/USDT). The pricing puts it at X OSMO per 1 IST while other stablecoin paired supercharged pools puts the pricing at X DAI, USDT, or USDC per 1 OSMO. Its just odd for IST/OSMO pool to stick out like this.

Hoping this is a quick and easy fix in terms of having the IST/OSMO show the price of X IST per 1 OSMO like the other stablecoin supercharged pools and that another pool doesn’t need to be created to fix this. If it does require a new pool to be created hopefully this can be done without governance approval as Prop #571 did approve the creation of an OSMO/IST supercharged pool rather than a IST/OSMO supercharged pool.

  • Is the multi-hop discount going to get turned back on?

I’m a little bit confused on this one. Is IST/USDT not very much a stable-swap pool where both assets should roughly stick to the same value?

Or did we lose the stableswap methode also along the way? (lost on this one hahaha)

It is, but Supercharged pools are more efficient than the Stableswap curve

But the Supercharged pools require more work from the liquidity providers, right?
Is the stableswap not a thing to be improved to be able to be more passive, while still using the process that the peg is maintained via the automatic curve?

Stableswap on a 1:1 asset is less efficient that Supercharged but more resistant to depeg events since liquidity exists on a wider range.
Stableswap on a fluctuating asset like LSTs will have the scaling factor adjusted by the new contracts and so be easier to maintain than a Supercharged pool - until vaults come in.
However, the ratio will change slowly enough to make the effort quite low to keep a concentrated range on.

1 Like

Curious to see how this will work out ^^

My gut feeling says a passive approach is more effective and resilient tbh