Discussion regarding a potential PIP to add the above NFTs. Any thoughts and ideas of vault ceiling limits?
3 Likes
Love the idea, And wondering if team would get price feed of these collection via chainlink oracles? Or team has to work around it due to its lower transactional volume…
If it aint chainlink oracles, can start small with an assumption of 20 deposits at 30 % LTV.
Take fidenze pf at 90eth. On an average of 30% LTV borrow, equals 27eth. Across 20 deposits, would amounts to 540 eth.
To round that number up, Debt ceiling of 600eth (for fidenza, the assumption that chainlink oracle is not used)
(else, if chainlink oracles can be used, a debt ceiling of 1200eth)
1 Like
Low transactional volume indeed… Nevertheless, Autoglyphs are the holy grail of art NFTs, and Fidenza/Ringers/Squiggles are three of Artblocks’s most sought after collections. DAO would be bearing very small risk given current stats.
@Jpegmaxi I’d assume a higher average LTV %, most of these grail holders surely have pockets deep enough to boost it either via either token lock or cig.
Also curious how we would monitor fp for Autoglyphs for example?
Yea, Fidenza Autoglyhs are pretty much blue chip, likened to punks, but higher in valuation and more scarce. Thus, i would say the chance of running into bad debt is significantly low.
This is my train of thought, max LTV borrow is 60%. Having the assumption that owners aren’t degen, they would play it safe at 30%
However, one must bear in mind that i believe only a handful of owners out there actually own multiple pieces of ABs
(Correct me if I am wrong, as I am not familiar with the landscape of AB owners)
Thus, not all of them would be getting token LTV boost / Cig boost.
Thus, I come to the conclusion of an average borrow of 30%LTV.
Also wanting to add on, that I don’t see any nft platform providing nft loans deposits on AB collection
(Not to mention p2p platforms , where depositors get charged exorbitant interest rates )
Thus being first to offer ABs deposits would be very advantageous for gaining market share across all vaults.
Regarding assessment of price floor for all of them, MrPink mentioned on discord that it would indeed be via Chainlink price oracles.
The question now boils down to this:
Wen AB vaults ?
I like this proposal.
I feel this is a relatively new market to tap in and brings JPEG’d closer to offering loans for all blue chips NFTs and also the very high end ones, like for the higher end art pieces.
Seeing this is a relatively new market to explore and possibly less liquiid, I’d suggest we start conservatively and define ceiling for each vaults by an amount of units it could hold to start with. I’d say 600-800 ETH as ceilings to start with?
What assurances will we have that this won’t be a repeat of the Rock Vault? As in not a repeat where team deposits their Rocks at high floor and locks out vault instead of lowering floor during market crashes.
We would need some kind of assurance that our funds that go out for loans would be done in a way that protects the Daos funds instead of protecting the team that deposited their Rock NFTs.
There needs to be some kind of standard for aggressively lowering floor when markets start to collapse so we are not bag holding a NFT that lost 90 percent of its value.