Controlling quantity and quality of iassets

Is there a quality control mechanism for iassets to avoid the market being flooded by a lot of sub-par or low liquidity iassets?

The theory almost any asset can become an iasset is great but also do we prefer quality over quantity?


I will put a quote here of Indigo,

"What is Indigo?

Indigo tokenizes the real-world economy by bridging assets to the blockchain, giving everybody equal access to financial opportunities."

So i believe that somehow it should be to give everybody equal opportunities, not everybody has the same amount of wealth, we should not forget about that.

A small opportunity for us could be a big opportunity to someone else


I would say quality overules quantity. It’s not about how much iAssets is in the protocol, it is about how well the iAssets serve their purpose. Too many iAsset with small or insignificant returns is worthless.


Id love to see the best of both worlds to actually give everybody the opportunity of financial growth


From the White paper

Blockquote Governance
The Indigo protocol is fully decentralized in that no one is powerful enough to change it at will. Instead, all changes must go through a democratic governance process. INDY holders can deposit a small sum of Proposal Deposit to open new proposals for other INDY stakers to vote on.

Initially, INDY holders can start the following proposals:

White list a new synthetic asset type to make it mintable.
●Delist an asset in the event of unstable market conditions, making it no longer mintable.
●Update protocol parameters, like the minimal amount of INDY tokens required to open a new proposal.
●Spend the community fund for new development, Indigo Improvement Proposals, and Bug Bounties.

After a Voting Period, if the amount of staked INDY participants and the ratio of yes over no votes pass both minimum requirements, the proposal passes. However, the protocol will wait for an Effective Delay before making the change to ensure a smooth transition. For example, upon whitelisting a new iAsset, its oracle might need some time to stabilize.
So what does this all mean? It means all new iassets that track new asset types have to be voted on by the community. This also means the community decides the quality of iassets available.

The market will correct for the quanity of iassets available given the arbitrage opportunities for price discrepancies

You may then say well what stops someone from just spamming the protocol with a bunch of proposals for garbage iassets? That is where INDY comes in. To submit a proposal to include a new iasset you have to put up INDY. If that proposal fails you lose your INDY. That creates a huge incentive not to submit dumb iassets.


Perfect this is exactly what I was looking for

Indy have got it covered :ok_hand:t2:


Thank you for this response. That clears things up well.


We are going to be a DAO so Indigo will be governed by the INDY community as @Swoops pointed out from the whitepaper quote. The DAO will be vetting the iAsset proposals as they are made. The concept of a DAO is new and we are all learning since it is what makes Web3 unique and hopefully a change for the better.


Swoops for the win! Seems like this is sufficiently addressed then from the OP’s concern. I’d gather that as the community grows and interest in a WIDE variety of iAssets also gathers, that we’ll be voting very often or votes will be grouped together so they’re phased in at appropriate times. Pros and cons to both approaches.


The quality control mechanism is governance. You and I get to propose and vote on what iAssets we want to see. There needs to be enough interest and volume to warrant it like you said.


When talking about quality, what would be the attributes that would make something qualified as a “good” iAsset? On one hand I think that quality is more important that quantity but on the other hand I am aware that I may not see the value proposition of all things that are valuable - and may identify something as being valuable which isn’t.

On one hand, In years past crypto has struggled with legitimacy because it has been misunderstood and as such written off as magic internet money. On the other hand, there have been some bad crypto projects that have helped to grow a negative reputation. As crypto has matured investors have become more savvy in the projects they support, by having a way of being able to tell the “good” from the “bad”

If we are to use governance to choose what is considered a “good” iAsset versus a “bad” iAsset perhaps we should consider creating some loose guidelines to consider when assessing a proposed iAsset - nothing that has to be followed but suggestions similar to what you see in Catalyst voting forums.

Some ideas on criteria:

  1. Something that can have a value attributed to it. (Soy beans cost XXX vs the temperature in Rome costs ???)

  2. Listed on another exchange, NYSE, TYO, LSE etc. Commodity futures (Things that Oracles can fetch data for)

  3. Can a human be an iAsset? (Celebrities & athletes: can we / should we track their net worth via an iAsset?)

  4. Art?

  5. collectibles, an iAsset that tracks the value of a SpaceBud, or a rare magic the gathering card?

These are just a few ideas I have but would love to see what others think in terms of deciding what criteria should be included in an iAsset


Well yes, it would be. It’s not like anybody can add new iAsset to the protocol. Assets will be choosen by the DAO after voting.
So say you want your favourite Asset to be added to the Indigo protocol as an iAsset. For this you need to create a proposal and, if I am not mistaken, also have to lock a particular amount of INDY with the DAO. Then after discussion, the DAO will decide through voting if it is to be added or not. So yeah you will only see best of the assets on Indigo.


Great info! Thank you for this!


Im loving the hole idea more and more