I would like to know what we are trying to achieve by adding trash coins (foxy) with the following spot stats. And just three oracles
Just calculate how little capital it takes to draw a candle of any size. Are we trying to rekt the users?
I see that some validators, take the proposals seriously and vote no. Others vote like in the DPRK parliament
Message to validators: I know anybody can post any proposal but please read it carefully
Totally agree.
And then we spend thousands $$$ on market makers for providing liquidity, aren’t we? That’s madness.
We should solve this problem Stimulating Long-Tail markets liquidity before flooding dydx with low caps. Like waiting for the vaults strategy to play out first? 
In total agreement - why list crap?
Is there any plan to add tokenized versions of S&P500, TNX (10-year treasury) or USDY (3-month treasury) to DYDX? I know USDY from ONDO is a tokenized fund of 3-month treasury bills, wonder if there is any plan for it? I don’t know if tokenized versions of SPX or TNX exist, but I think they will be nice addition to BTC, ETH and SOL as volume getters.
The question remains if DYDX will give proper attention and exposure to attract traders to trade those assets on DYDX compared to the other venues where it is already tradeable.
Only listing an asset does not automatically mean volume is created…
Of course. But in tradfi, 80-90% of volume is SPX and Treasuries. If you were to find volume anywhere, it would be there. DYDX has a strategy right now of permissionlessly listing all kinds of tokens (which is fine) but the reality is those don’t have the kind of volumes Bitcoin and Ethereum have. I am trying to think “out of the box” here or more like “in the box” (from tradfi perspective). Maybe the volumes can be found where they already are. DYDX can be the only place where you trade SPX, TNX, BTC, ETH and SOL. I’d probably also add Gold to that mix of macro heavy hitters although SPX and TNX usually have far larger volumes.
On behalf of the PRO Delegators’ validator, we have been very clear about this issue of questionable listings for quite some time. We are among the few, if not the only, validators consistently casting NO votes on certain proposals.
As we mentioned back in april, we will begin to decline proposals that do not meet our risk threshold.
Since that day, we have developed a basic four-criteria framework:
While the fourth metric may require a more expert eye on the market, we believe every validator should be able to quickly assess the remaining three. We hope this will inspire them to adopt similar or even personalized frameworks like this one. We need quality contributors in the validator set, not people voting yes without paying specific attention to the proposals. On-chain delegated governance is a validator responsibility, and we should treat it with care.
Thanks for reading,
Govmos.
Thank you for such an approach to governance. I think all validators should adhere to it not only in their voting decisions but also in publicly stating the reasons behind their choices. This “Yes vote” crew is pathetic and casts a huge shadow over the entire governance process.
