Basic lebitcoin google indexnding platform
Pandapops is optimistic and friendlklever bitcoin blockchain wallet apky, with a British accent and bright blue hair. "I really want the aquarium to look deep," she explained.In the next two hours, she carefully created and adjusted her digital assets: she added a splash effect to the aquarium, she planted a flower and painted it a spooky blue, and she finished her "Witch’s Hut". ("Witch's Hut: The humble home of any aspiring woodland witch.")
This project was very attractive, and soon the virtual world began to expand. Pandapops completed her aquarium, put it in a tavern, and then inserted the tavern into a village she created, enclosing it in a forest.There are people everywhere in the village, and she is designing a game. "This guy hasn't given us a task yet, but he will," Pandapops said of the bartender. Like all the small characters, he looks a bit like a character in a Lego movie. "That's a bounty hunter," she said. Soon we saw our protagonist, the well-known "Player One", who was jogging through the courtyard with a cute little sword.Pandapops is not a professional game designer. She is not an employee of Epic, Sony or Electronic Arts. She is using a program called VoxelEdits to create a game for the sandbox. The sandbox is a meta-universe based on blockchain technology. The game launched its public version 1 in late September.According to the company's co-founder and COO Sebastien Borget, even before the launch of Metaverse, the sandbox's Game Maker engine (currently in beta) has been downloaded more than 100,000 times. "Our Game Maker does not require code, and you can make games without any experience," Borget said. "This is what we have been building for more than three years."They have actually been built for 10 years. Sandbox was originally launched in 2011 as an ordinary non-blockchain startup, representing a shift from traditional games to encrypted games. Sandbox was originally a mobile application. Borget said that although the app has been downloaded 40 million times, "the success of the game comes from users." These users have created 70 million assets, which is common in traditional games such as Minecraft and Roblox. After Borget learned about the strong market for CryptoKitties, CryptoPunks, and NFT users, he flipped the sandbox model to a decentralized blockchain meta-universe, which enabled “turning players into creators” and then “helping players and creating People monetize all the content they produce."
For non-blockchain enthusiasts, meta universe is still an obscure concept. This may change soon. The New York Times is running the meta-universe interpreter; traditional brands such as Sotheby’s and Coca-Cola are entering the meta-universe; perhaps most importantly, Zuckerberg is linking the future of Facebook with the meta-universe. He told employees in the summer, The company's primary goal is to "bring the virtual world to life."This begs the question, what exactly is the meta universe? Is it just one platform, or the sum of all platforms? Ask 10 different people in an encrypted meeting and you will get 10 different definitions. Venture capitalist Matthew Bauer wrote: "We should not expect to have a single and comprehensive definition of'meta universe'." "Meta universe is best understood as a'further development of the mobile Internet'. This is because of the meta universe. The universe will not fundamentally replace the Internet, but iteratively transform on its basis."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: DebankIn 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, 2021Qubit 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" function
Qubit is part of Mound’s product matrix, and Mound’s products are highly combinableQubit does not support lightning loan function
Business conditionsBusiness dataQubit'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 supply
The 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.
At present, the borrowing rate of most assets on Qubit is 60%, which is slightly higher than the initial 50%. While this reduces the risk, it also reduces the pledger's capital utilization efficiency to some extent, especially the mortgage rate of all stablecoin assets is only 60%. There is still a lot of room for optimization of the overall parameters.In terms of contract security, Qubit only received an audit report from the Peckshield family before it went live in August, which was slightly thin, and the oracle used Chainlink.
The total deposits and TVL growth rate of Qubit was very fast since the launch of Qubit. The product's data board function is complete, the product interaction is smooth, and the interface is more beautiful, but overall there are not many innovations. As the currency price continues to fall and subsidies are diluted by funds, the current TVL decline of the project is also very obvious. It is worth noting that, compared to other lending project tokens whose core value source is to capture the cash flow of the agreement, Qubit's tokens are not currently linked to the project's profit. The only function is to increase the deposit of tokens through lock-up. Subsidies, which also caused the intrinsic value of project tokens to weaken, and the high inflation of tokens further aggravated the selling pressure of tokens.Product launch time: not online