Misunderstood with my proposal"Limits iAsset 200% or 250%"

[juanCardano]

They can read the discussion at the following link, but first read what I will put here

User Protection, Limits iAsset 200% or 250%

Given the circumstances of the bear market and the inexperience of many investors, the leveraged and other things, I propose something to protect all users and also the INDIGO coins. Currently, the limit to request iAsset and be liquidated is 110% Liquidity can be maintained, but here are the changes that I suggest. 1-To request iAsset the minimum requirement must be 200% or 250%, the same as Djed recommends, but instead of 400% it would be 200-250% with indigo, increasing the liquidity of Ca…

“Before continuing, I’m not sure if it was due to the Google translator or what, but you misunderstood my proposal, and now I understand why there were attacks. Therefore, I had to use AI to explain it better to you. I clarify that I don’t have the intention of attacking the protocol, I just want to propose and discuss something. (I was secretly testing on Tesnet to prove my theory, but due to lack of liquidity and market trend change, I didn’t continue. The protocol justified that a bot was turned off, don’t think it is a vulnerability, but in case of a coordinated panic move, it may result in an unpayable CDP debt, leading the protocol to freeze funds or any other circumstance leading the limit to all users and the protocol. For example, look at the fall of the Cardano nodes, which fell by 50% in seconds and minutes, very similar to what happened with Solana (we will not discuss that here, experts let’s continue the discussion ).”

Therefore, before continuing, I ask that you look at the following images without reading anything I will write after them. If you believe your investment in a CDP will be liquidated between 110% and 200%, please review all images again.

Another protocol

Now, if you have understood the images, I congratulate you. If you have not understood that the idea is to have a minimum to create a 200% collateral and that the liquidation is 110%, then I recommend reviewing the images again until you understand.

I will leave one final image taken from DJED to explain what I wanted to show in my proposal, but do not take into account the reserve currency (meaning there is no Shen or any other reserve token), this is to explain as best as possible if you did not understand with drawings.

example:
1- 1. An investor deposits 1000 ADA as collateral to open a CDP. The current price of ADA is $1. The investor has a collateral ratio of 100%, meaning they have $1000 of collateral. The investor can borrow $900 in iUSD. If the price of ADA falls to $0.90, the investor’s collateral drops to $900, which is 100% of their iUSD loan, and their CDP is liquidated. Being below 110% means the investor loses all of their collateral funds.

2- 1. An investor deposits 2000 ADA as collateral to open a CDP. The current price of ADA is $1. The investor has a collateral ratio of 150%, meaning they have $3000 of collateral. The investor can borrow $900 in iUSD. If the price of ADA falls to $0.90, the investor’s collateral drops to $1800, which is 110% of their iUSD loan, and their CDP is not liquidated. Being between 110% and 200% means the investor keeps their collateral funds.
3- 1. An investor deposits 5000 ADA as collateral to open a CDP. The current price of ADA is $1. The investor has a collateral ratio of 250%, meaning they have $12500 of collateral. The investor can borrow $900 in iUSD. If the price of ADA falls to $0.90, the investor’s collateral drops to $2250, which is 250% of their iUSD loan, and their CDP is not liquidated. Having collateral ratio over 200% means the investor is protected even in an extreme bear market.

Having a minimum collateral ratio of 200% and liquidation ratio of 110% ensures that even in a bear market, investors will only lose their funds if their collateral falls below 110%. This protects the user from complete loss of funds in a bear market as the protocol only liquidates CDPs when collateral falls below 110%. Additionally, having a collateral ratio greater than 200% provides even more protection against loss of funds for the user.

I deeply apologize if my proposal was misunderstood. I was not suggesting to raise the collateral along with the liquidation rate to 120%. I do not agree with that idea and do not approve it. My intention was simply to ensure that users cannot borrow in an irresponsible manner.

I wanted to propose something similar to DJED but with autonomy for each of us. If some are not in agreement with the loan being greater than 200% due to self-liquidation, I respect that decision and that of the community. For me, 200% is the most responsible, but if the community votes for 150%, that’s fine for me and I agree. However, it is important that the liquidation rate always be at 110%. In the last protocol change, I thought that the detail of increasing the minimum collateral to 120% was not well explained, and when I started to be interested in the proposal, it seemed like a bad move for the users of Indigo with such a mediocre proposal in governance. Voted ONLY SAYING “minimum collateral-120%” Be more responsible and also explain the details of the new limits.

This is my last participation in the forum and I am writing this to clarify what I am proposing. If you do not agree, simply vote against it and do not create problems about it. I am a user like all of you, just writing in this forum. I ask the developers to delete my previous proposals as they have caused conflicts and discomfort among us. Finally, I will not participate in this protocol anymore.

[defiroose]

Thank you for taking the time to express your ideas. I’m still a bit confused as to what you are proposing but welcome further discussion.

[borges047]

If I got this right, he’s proposing that between 110-200% collateral ratio you should not be able to mint any iAsset. You can deposit or burn freely, but no minting below 200%. Liquidation would occur at 110% as it is happening now for iBTC or iETH, or 120% for iUSD.
Am I right, @juanCardano ?

[juanCardano]

@borges047

If I got this right, he’s proposing that between 110-200% collateral ratio you should not be able to mint any iAsset. You can deposit or burn freely, but no minting below 200%. Liquidation would occur at 110% as it is happening now for iBTC or iETH, or 120% for iUSD.

Hello Borgues047, you are correct, that was my proposal for the community.

It’s already been decided that it’s detrimental to Indigo. That is why it is no longer a proposal that you should consider.

Thanks for your question.

[mannymacfly]

Its not an attack its just discussion about the future of OUR protocol Indigo Protocol Proposal Temp Check Increasing ALL iAsset MCR to 200% is Still Nuts! - YouTube

[juanCardano]

Hi Manny, I’ve seen your video. I was waiting for your video, as I said in my last post, (I don’t know if they call it that) and that’s why it doesn’t have to be considered as a new proposal or something similar. As I said, all of the above is an explanation of my proposal (which did not have to be a definitive decision from what I say.) The above was written and for those who did not understand me. I was upset, because of 1 or 2 comments, but I’m not bothered by the proposal being rejected, out of 100 proposals that the whole community suddenly puts 1 will be implemented, I never expected mine to be implemented and I don’t think they will implement it, you know Well, that happens because of the developers and the DAO, so why would you be afraid if you know that it would be rejected by the same community, I want you to know that it doesn’t bother me that you comment or make your videos, on the contrary, continue with your videos, everyone We are all critical and we all think differently and I respect your opinion.

My proposal was more of a suggestion, as I told you I will be watching the evolution of the project and on the mainnet I am going with a little to see how 500 USD behaves for me is nothing, I would never wish anything bad to Indigo, quite the opposite I want Indigo ok, Cardano needs Indigo, and so do I, and I’m betting on Indigo too (CEO is nice guy).

It was just my precaution, I want you to know that after the moon I am very suspicious of synthetics and we have to be demanding if we are their consumers, and think about it as Indigo Customers and if we don’t like something we have to say so.

In all this time I never got upset if my proposal was rejected, my intention was to develop ideas with the community, from a concept or an idea, I wanted to see what other suggestions people had, what ideas they contributed and see what was born after Let’s all give an idea, I like and I’m passionate about proposing and making mistakes, and I look for solutions to those mistakes (THAT’S ME) I’m not bothered by my failure in my supposed attack or whatever you call it, it was a litmus test for me, and to be sure that indigo is a safe project, and it turns out that he convinced me that if it is, I don’t understand why they bothered, (You learn from mistakes). I will not be upset again if this proposal is rejected and that is the idea, that we all propose in indigo.

While I will be watching how it evolves, when I am more sure of Indigo, I will invest.

Finally, I apologize if I offended you, and for responding badly and if I was rude to you. I wish you success on your channel.