Can the sequetheta unitncer review transactions?
In terms of products, it aims to track more underlying encrypted assets, add various fund structures through innovativapp to buy tron coine synthetic derivatives, and achieve more use cases for its governance token CHESS. Tranchess is looking to expand to multiple chains and build a mature technology and marketing team to cooperate with other agreements in the ecosystem. The project plans to establish a community DAO by the end of this year to take over the governance of the agreement.In July, Tranchess Protocol completed a $1.5 million seed round of funding, led by Arrows Capital and Spartan Group, with participation from Binance Labs, Longhash Ventures, and IMO Ventures. The funds will be used to expand the product to a multi-chain system and transition to the DAO structure before the end of the year.
Tranchess is a team of blockchain and financial experts who have different backgrounds and experiences around the world, covering the U.S., Europe and Asian time zones. Most of the members of the Tranchess team come from investment banks, asset management companies and hedge funds, and have extensive experience in network security for exchanges and DeFi protocols.Its co-founder is Danny Chong. Danny Chong has more than 16 years of banking experience. He was responsible for Crédit Agricole CIB's foreign exchange and fixed-rate product (FX & Rates) sales SEA department.On September 1, the public beta version of Arbitrum, the general expansion network of Ethereum, was officially launched. At the beginning of the launch, it was sought after by many DeFi blue chip applications such as Uniswap, Sushiswap, and Curve. In less than two weeks, the amount of funds locked up reached 2.2 billion. The US dollar has surpassed the public chains of Fantom, Heco, Near, etc., and is close to the current two-tier leader polygon.The launch of Arbitrum has become a milestone in the history of Layer 2 development, and it has been praised by many as "finally there is a "true second layer"." The second layer network, or Layer 2 as we often say, generally refers to the second layer of Ethereum. Their operating logic is simply: to reduce the data processing on the main chain by performing calculations or storage outside the main chain , So as to achieve the purpose of expanding performance, but still relying on the status of the main chain security.In fact, in the early days of Bitcoin, Layer 2 was already a topic that attracted much attention. At that time, Layer 2 was mainly used to solve the payment expansion of Bitcoin. It proposed a side chain solution including state channels and Liquid, RSK, etc. plan.
After entering the era of Ethereum, in addition to the sidechain and state channel solutions that have already appeared, a new expansion plan appeared-Plasma, which was the protagonist of the early Ethereum expansion plan, but later, due to the Plasma plan Security issues, as well as the emergence of the Rollup solution and the maturity of the zero-knowledge proof technology, the Plasma solution was gradually abandoned, and the research direction turned to the current mainstream Rollup solution.The so-called Rollup here refers to the collection of multiple transactions under the chain, compressed into a transaction, and then sent to the main network, so as to achieve the effect of saving transaction costs and reducing the amount of interaction. How to ensure the security and authenticity of the data under the Rollup chain, based on the different proof mechanisms, gave birth to two mainstream expansion solutions that we are familiar with-ZK Rollp (zero-knowledge proof) and Optimistic Rollup (fraud proof). Each has its own advantages and disadvantages in performance. As we will introduce later, the Arbitrum launched this time is the latter (subtle differences).Like the trading platform, the lending project is also the basic liquidity layer of the crypto world. It plays the role of a bank in the crypto world. Its essence is to coordinate the supply and demand of funds from multiple parties and match liquidity across periods. The business ceiling of this track will expand simultaneously with the expansion of the scale of the encryption business.
On the other hand, the demand for matching funds is long-term, and there is no doubt about the sustainability of this track. Although the current funding needs for encrypted lending mainly come from investment leverage, arbitrage, and short-term capital turnover, with the progress of compliance, the channel between the traditional world and encrypted finance will eventually be opened, and the real-world collateral ( The introduction of lending platforms such as real estate and corporate credits, and issuing loans to non-crypto players through stablecoins are all things that are gradually happening, which will bring more room for development to the industry.Whether as entrepreneurs, investors or ordinary users in this industry, the track of crypto lending is far from the final form. There are still a large number of new products and rich investment opportunities worth looking forward to.As of September 16, 2021, Defi's total TVL has hit a new high since May, reaching 180 billion US dollars. Although the proportion of borrowed TVL has declined, it still occupies the bulk, with a TVL of approximately US$50 billion.The top 15 lending agreements of TVL (not including Makerdao, Liquity), data source: DefiLlama
In terms of outstanding borrowings, the current outstanding borrowing amount of all loan agreements is about 30 billion U.S. dollars.The total amount of loans in the loan agreement, data source: Debank
In terms of business volume, the established projects Aave, Compound and MakerDAO still firmly occupy the top three positions, and their TVL accounts for more than 70% of the entire lending market.However, the rise of emerging lending projects is also amazing. The top ten projects in TVL include Anchor on Terra (US$3.12 billion), Benqi on the avalanche agreement (US$1.23 billion), and Qubit (US$400 million) on BSC. Unlike the big three lending giants that originated in Ethereum, these fast-growing lending forces all come from Ethereum’s competitors, which is the hottest narrative at the moment-the new public chain.What's more surprising is that in addition to the earlier launch time of Anchor (in March this year), the official launch time of the other two projects is only less than one month.In terms of the type of lending business, whether it is the number of projects or the amount of funds, basic lending projects account for a higher proportion, followed by leveraged mining lending projects, and other relatively new ones such as risk-graded interest rate products. The business volume is currently relatively small.
This research report will focus on newly born lending projects in the past 1-2 months with rapid business growth (TVL has entered the top 15 lending category), and Euler, a project with many innovative combinations in mechanism.The following is a detailed analysis and analysis of each item.In the combing and analysis part, the author will present and analyze the product positioning, project characteristics, business conditions, token model and risk control of the four projects, in order to analyze these four emerging lending projects as a whole as possible.Basic lending platform
Project StatusProduct launch time: August 24, 2021
Qubit is a decentralized currency market that uses a mainstream borrowing capital pool model. Qubit's development and operation team is the team behind Pancakebunny-Mound, which was first deployed on BSC, and there are plans for multi-chain expansion in the future.Project Features
The main features of Qubit compared to other basic lending projects are:Its token QBT can increase the rate of return of deposit users after lock-up, which is called "Boost" functionQubit is part of Mound’s product matrix, and Mound’s products are highly combinableQubit does not support lightning loan functionBusiness conditionsBusiness data
Qubit's core business data are as follows:We can find that although Qubit's project has been online for less than a month, it currently has a considerable amount of deposits and the utilization rate of funds is relatively high. This is related to Bunny's previous accumulation of a large number of BSC users and the relatively high amount of token subsidies for the project. Currently, QBT's single-day subsidy amount is around US$190,000.
Product UIUXQubit's product UI style is simple and clear, the interaction is smooth, the display of key data is reasonable and detailed, and the overall user experience is better.
Qubit product main interface, https://qbt.fi/appMoreover, the current business data and risk parameters of Qubit's specific assets are very detailed, and graphically processed, and there are some historical data available for checking, which is worthy of recognition.
Token modelTotal and supplyThe total amount of QBT is 1 billion, of which 57% is used for liquid mining rewards, and the remaining 43% is controlled by the team. The specific distribution ratio is as follows:QBT distribution ratio, source: Qubit project document
The total amount of 1 billion QBT will be distributed within one year, so QBT will face very high inflationary pressure in the next 12 months. The specific token unlocking rhythm is as follows:In my opinion, there are two core problems in the supply and release mechanism of Qubit tokens:
The proportion of team control is relatively high, and most of them have not set strict token unlocking conditions, and the long-term binding of team interests and projects is insufficientThe tokens of the liquid mining part are released too fast, which may cause the project to lack sufficient subsidy budget after one year, which is not conducive to the long-term development of the project
Token value captureCore function: revenue acceleration
Up to now, the main function of QBT is to obtain qScore after lock-up. Through qScore, deposit users can accelerate their deposit income (from the increase in QBT deposit subsidies).This mechanism is similar to Curve's Locker mechanism. Curve's Locker function and economic model consolidate its original competitive advantage and increase the switching cost of liquidity providers and investors. It is a very eye-catching design. However, when the mechanism is applied to a loan agreement, will it still have a good effect? The author remains skeptical about this.First of all, the reason why some people are willing to lock up the position of Curve's token CRV for a long time after buying it is caused by Curve's strong position in the stable asset business chain and the competition for the governance power of Curve by multiple participants. Because governance power on the Curve platform means two core resources: the baton of liquidity and the accelerator of revenue.Since the issuer of stable consideration assets (stable currency, stETH and other pledge certificates and BTC cross-chain assets such as renBTC are all stable consideration assets), they have great requirements on the stability and transaction depth of their operating assets, so they choose Curve to list. Assets and attracting market-making liquidity are very rigid requirements, which creates a strong position of Curve relative to asset operators, which is determined by the business positioning of its Top1 stable asset exchange platform.
In terms of the expansion of asset lending scenarios, the demand from asset operators is far less strong, which has led to a large number of less demanders of Qubit governance rights, and the overall lock-up willingness is difficult to reach the level of Curve.In addition to the revenue acceleration function, QBT currently has no other functional scenarios. The Qubit platform's loan interest spread income does not have QBT's repurchase or dividend mechanism.
On the whole, QBT tokens are currently weak in capturing the overall economic value of the platform.risk control
Qubit does not have a very special design for risk control. It basically uses a method similar to the mainstream lending agreement Aave. Each mortgageable asset has two types: LTV (Loan-to-Value) and liquidation threshold (Liquidation Threshold). The main parameters, the former determines the upper limit ratio of funds that can be lent for a fixed-value collateral, and the latter determines when the debt/collateral comes to the ratio, the liquidation window will be opened.However, the current borrowing ratio of all Qubit assets is the same as the liquidation line, instead of Aave's method of using the liquidation line to be higher than the borrowing ratio.