$YBX: Thoughts?

Curious to hear what folks think about the $YBX implementation. While development has been in progress for $YBX for a while, I still consider the whitepaper an iterative proposal – and I’d love to hear improvements to the design or any feedback top of mind for you.

If you missed it, the $YBX whitepaper can be found here.



Is there an advantage to only having LSTs as the collateral for $YBX rather than having a mix of assets? I’m pretty ignorant when it comes to minting stables, so forgive me if this question sounds uninformed.

Also, what happens if the an LST depegs?

Thank you!

I’d also like to know what the possible drawbacks are from using LST as collateral instead of a mix of other assets.

1 Like

Very interesting proposal on $YBX. I do have a couple of questions:
-in the arbitrage resolution: how is the price/value of the collateral determined when minting/redeeming an LST?
-am I correct that simply a rapid increase in the outstanding units of YBX would “dilute” the overcollateralisation and thus could trigger the liquidation protocol?
My concern/question would be in an environment of rapid price decreases, where YBX is liquidating but prices are decreasing quickly, would the “bad reserve” token be enough? I do like the general idea of this “governance token”. Is it safe to say it would receive x% of the “overcollateralization” but then would backstop any extreme volatility.

Would it make sense to have a % of $YBX collateral held in another asset (that could be a stablecoin such as USDC or something like ETH such that:
-$YBX aims to keep x% (let’s say 10%) of collateral in a non-yielding asset that increases overall stability)
-in an environment of weakening collateral, redeemers could choose to either withdraw vs x% of LST or a smaller % of that stablecoin. For example 98%. Thus the entity would have the option to take 100% of value in LST or 98% of value in stablecoin which would only make sense in a more extreme environment.

Just spitballing… but curious on thoughts…

1 Like