Hello, thanks for the great update on the roadmap and vision.
I would like to challenge the Assumption of Using a V2 like model DEX on Statemint.
The capabilities that statemint will offer in term of assets management/mirroring are very solid.
Builders always tend to believe we will build a DEX and once its functional and operational, YES the work is done and traders or protocols can now safely start swapping tokens.
Nevertheless, how innovative, beautiful and DEX can be on Statemint, to work effectively, traders need liquidity to be able to swap using the DEX and is definitely one of the most forgotten aspect while building.
That being said, providing liquidity on V2 model makes no sense usually for sophisticated liquidity providers and it’s indeed providing liquidity in an infinite range and is not optimal at all.
I’d recommend here to instead build on a similar model as UNI V3 (now can be forked with no issues) or Please check Carbon from Bancor their last powerful DEX.
I believe more efficient DEX models could be choose to give the optimality Statemint needs to Thrive.
MVP Workshop just posted an update on their #referenda68 progress on building a “Statemint DEX” => “using the AssetHub Conversion Pallet”, please give them valuable feedback here or there!
I believe with the arrival of USDC on Assethub, people should be able to build DOT/X pairs and swap USDC for X, but it requires all the parachains aim there (especially all those that felt super threatened by the very existence of the above sort of effort!) –
Please take a look and plot a strategy, and inspire them and the rest of us to do more!
It won’t be in this release but my goal is to have it in the next Fellowship release. There were a few PRs that needed to be audited in order to allow Asset Conversion use with XCM. We should be ready now, it’s just too late to dump more into this release; it’s really at its final stages.
For Polkadot Rollups needing EVM, should they satisfy this need on
(a) AssetHub for Polkadot with EVM Pallets
(b) A system chain for Polkadot Rollups
(c) A parachain for Polkadot Rollups
(d) They shouldn’t. There should never be Rollups on Polkadot
@joepetrowski@gilescope As ED is being added on AssetHub for Polkadot in prep for DED (snapshot taken!), can you advise when the assetconversion pallet will be activated there please?
This would enable DOT/DED pool creation and DED trading.
Is 3rd or 4th week of April possible?
Would it be reasonable to ask for like 50% reduced fees in the x/USDC (DOT/x + DOT/USDC) and x/USDT (DOT/x + DOT/USDT) cases? (e.g. for x=DED case)
The Asset Conversion PR has already been merged, so as soon as the 1.2.0 upgrade is released and enacted, it will be there.
Right now the pallet has a global fee setting, and special cases would require quite some time to make it into the runtime, so no at the start. I’m not sure this is a good idea, how does one decide on x?
Liquidity pool fees are essentially the price a liquidity provider is asking in exchange for incurring impermanent loss risk. So the fee is a determination of liquidity providers.
As different LPs have different levels of acceptable risk, setting different levels for different pools should generally be discouraged or really up to stakeholder consensus.
Options that I see:
don’t allow custom exchange commissions
let it be set by governance
let it be determined by the creator of the token
allow different pools for the same asset with different fee levels
Since the idea of the AssetHub xyk pools never was to compete with DEXes, but rather to provide a shared gateway to obtain gas and have audited pools to have DOT/ETH capital rails, options 1-3 look acceptable to me, 4 is overkill.
The fees of 0.6% for DED/USDC vs 0.3% for DOT/DED appear 2x as high. Just lowering 0.3 to 0.15 is the fastest way to solve for this but I understand a good design wouldn’t have a lot manually created exceptions from RFCs, OpenGov. So I would use the “isSufficient” flag [set for USDC + USDT] and suggest that:
for all y/DOT pairs, where y has isSufficient=true, the fees are 0.15%
for all y/DOT pairs, where y has isSufficient=false, the fees are 0.3%
This makes the “isSufficient” feature affect assetConversion fee mechanics, which may not make logical sense but makes empirical sense to me given that isSufficient=true in practice means “stablecoins”.
A very important swap case is USDT-USDC, which should basically be as close to 0 as possible, but with the above changes from 0.6% to 0.3%, which is … a start.
Then, hypothetically, if OpenGov approved DED for isSufficient=true then same rule would work to result in:
This solution is not “custom”, does not involve governance/RFCs, does not involve token creator or pool creator complexity, and is pretty simple to implement.
The intention of all this is to support newcomers to AssetHub for Polkadot have a decent DOT/USD* + x/USD* + DOT/x trading experience on AssetHub. After some trading experience on AssetHub, these same users may be motivated to go to HydraDX, Bifrost, Moonbeam etc. and go up a DEX learning curve.
