First of all, let's take a look atethereum etf date what is the agreement income? What is the difference with income?
This model is similar to the "dynamic interest rate model" designed by Delphi Digital for the Mars Protocol, the lending agreement of the Terra ecology. On the one hand, it improves the sensitivity and accuracy of interest rate pricing, and at the same time, it can obtain higher interest income for depositors and the agreement itself.bitcoin broker jobsThe simulation of the mutual influence between the capital utilization rate and the borrowing rate in the Euler agreement, source: euler blog
To put it simply, the interest rate model is adjusted on the basis of mainstream lending agreements such as Aave. By adjusting the fund utilization formula, the interest rate can be more sensitively adapted to the real capital supply and demand situation of the market in real time, instead of the existing mainstream interest rate. The linear method of the model increases the interest rate. This can prevent the occurrence of a loan agreement that can only watch users use low-cost loans on their own platforms and then deposit them on other platforms to obtain high mining revenues for arbitrage. This will cause borrowers to have no incentive to provide loans, and lenders are unwilling The condition of repaying the loan as soon as possible eventually led to the exhaustion of the liquidity of the loan agreement. The dynamic interest rate model is dedicated to solving such problems.For details of the Euler interest rate dynamic model, please refer to "Introducing Euler" in the reference material.A large number of improvements in the liquidation mechanism: optimization of the liquidation threshold, anti-MEV, internal multi-collateral pool1. Combine mortgage rate and borrowing rate to customize the threshold of asset liquidationLike mainstream lending agreements, Euler requires users to ensure over-collateralization, that is, the value of assets is greater than the value of liabilities. When the value of liabilities exceeds a certain ratio of the collateral, it will allow the liquidator to liquidate the mortgagor's assets and repay the debt. But in the calculation of debt value, Euler also introduced the concept of borrowing factor. The liquidation threshold of each borrower is tailored to the specific risk profile associated with the assets they borrow and use as collateral. In other words, when the value of the borrower's risk-adjusted liabilities exceeds the value of the collateral, it may be liquidated. Specifically, compared to the original lending mechanism, Euler's mechanism also adds a multi-dimensional risk assessment of liabilities, which further improves the safety margin of liquidation.
At present, the main liquidation incentive model adopted by mainstream lending agreements such as Compound is: the liquidator can purchase the mortgagor's assets with a fixed percentage discount. Under this mechanism, all liquidators face the same liquidation opportunity, and their potential profit percentages are the same, so they can only compete for liquidation opportunities by increasing Gas, where the high MEV value (Gas cost) becomes the liquidator’s The additional cost also increases the risk of the system. On the other hand, for mortgagors, the fixed asset discount auction rate also allows them to lose the opportunity to lose a lower liquidation penalty.In response to this problem, Euler’s plan is to use Dutch auctions in liquidation, which can ease the joint bid of liquidators and may also obtain lower asset liquidation losses for mortgagors. At the same time, Euler also provides a discount acceleration mechanism for the collateral provider, so that he is eligible to conduct self-liquidation before the liquidator conducts the Dutch auction and reduce the mortgagor's loss. The above two measures are to restrict miners from grabbing excessive MEV fees in the liquidation, so as to improve the overall security of the system in the liquidation storm.The position in XCM is hierarchical, and some parts of the consensus are completely encapsulated into separate parts. For example, the Parachain of Polkadot completely exists in the internal position of the entire Polkadot consensus. As long as there is any change in one consensus system, it means a change in another consensus system, and the former system is the internal system of the latter.
When working in XCM, it is usually necessary to quote some kind of asset. This is because almost all existing public blockchains rely on some native digital assets to provide the backbone for their internal economic and security mechanisms. For proof-of-work blockchains such as Bitcoin, native assets (BTC) are used to reward miners who develop the blockchain and prevent double spending. For proof-of-stake blockchains such as Polkadot, native assets (DOT) are used as a form of collateral, and network administrators (called equity holders) must take risks to generate valid blocks and obtain physical rewards.Expense payment in XCM is a very important use case. Most parachains in the Polkadot community will require their interlocutors to pay for any operations they wish to perform to avoid "spam" and DDOS.When chains have good reasons to believe that their interlocutors are trustworthy, they can also not pay. For example, this is the case when the Polkadot relay chain communicates with the Polkadot Statemint public interest chain. However, in general, fees are a good way to ensure that XCM messages and their transmission protocols will not be overused.Let's take a look at how to pay when XCM messages arrive at Polkadot.
For systems that do need to pay a certain fee, XCM provides the ability to use assets to purchase execution resources. In a nutshell, this includes three parts:Provide some assets
Exchange assets in terms of computing time (weight in Substrate).XCM follows the instructionsAfter years of research and development, we finally formed a multi-chain market structure. There are currently more than 100 active public blockchains, many of which have their own unique applications, users, geographic distribution, security models, and design trade-offs. Regardless of what individual communities believe, the reality is that the universe tends to increase entropy, and the number of these networks is likely to continue to increase in the future.This type of market structure makes it necessary for us to obtain interoperability between different networks. Many developers have realized this, and the number of blockchain bridges surged last year, aiming to bring together increasingly fragmented networks. As of this writing, there have been more than 40 different bridging projects.
Interoperability unlocks innovation possibilitiesWith the development of a single ecosystem, they will develop their own unique advantages: stronger security, greater throughput, cheaper transaction fees, better privacy, specific resource supply (such as storage, computing, bandwidth), and Regional developer and user communities, etc. Bridges are important because they allow users to access new platforms and protocols; enable interoperability between protocols; allow developers to collaborate to build new products, and so on. More specifically, they have the following benefits:Improve the productivity and utility of existing crypto assetsBridging allows existing encrypted assets to be transferred to a new platform to do new things. like:
Send DAI to Terra to buy synthetic assets on Mirror, or earn revenue on AnchorSend TopShot from Flow to Ethereum as collateral for NFTfi
Use DOT and ATOM as collateral to lend DAI on MakerExpand the product features of existing agreements
Bridging expands the design space that the protocol can implement. E.g:Use Yearn vaults for liquid mining on Solana and AvalancheNFT cross-chain sharing order book on Ethereum and Flow on Rarible ProtocolIndex Coop's proof of equity indexUnlock new feature use cases for users and developersBridging gives users and developers more choices. like:
Arbitrage the price of SUSHI across DEX on Optimism, Arbitrum and PolygonUse Bitcoin to pay for Arweave storage fees
Bid NFT on Tezos with PartyBidFrom an abstract perspective, a bridge can be defined as follows: a system that transmits information between two or more blockchains. And "information" can refer to assets, contract calls, proofs, or status. Most bridge designs consist of the following parts:
Monitoring: There is usually a participant (or a "oracle", "verifier", "relayer") monitoring the status of the source chain.Message delivery/relay: After the participants receive the event, they need to transfer information from the source chain to the target chain.
Consensus: In some models, in order to forward information to the target chain, a consensus must be reached between participants monitoring the source chain.Signature: Participants need to encrypt and sign the information sent to the target chain, which can be single-signatured or as part of a threshold signature scheme.There are roughly four types of bridging schemes, each of which has its advantages and disadvantages:Asset-specific: The sole purpose of this bridge type is to provide access to specific assets on external chains. These assets are usually "wrapped" assets (assets that are fully mortgaged by the underlying assets in custody or non-custody). Bitcoin is the most common asset bridged to other chains, and there are seven different bridges on Ethereum alone. This kind of bridging is the easiest to achieve, and obtain huge liquidity from it. But its functions are limited and need to be re-implemented on each target chain. Examples are wBTC and wrapped Arweave.
Chain-specific: A bridge between two chains, which usually supports the locking and unlocking of tokens on the source chain and the casting of arbitrary encapsulated assets on the target chain. Due to the limited complexity of these bridges, they can usually be marketed faster, but they are not easy to expand into the broader ecosystem. The use case is Polygon’s PoS bridge, which allows users to transfer assets from Ethereum to Polygon and vice versa, but only on these two chains.Application-specific: An application that provides access to two or more blockchains, but only for use in that application. The advantage of this kind of application itself is that the code base is small; instead of having a separate instance of the entire application on each blockchain, there are usually more lightweight and modular on each blockchain "Adapter". A blockchain that implements an "adapter" can access all other blockchains it is connected to, so there is a network effect. Their disadvantage is that it is difficult to extend this function to other applications (for example, from lending applications to transaction applications). Specific use cases are Compound Chain and Thorchain, which respectively build independent blockchains dedicated to cross-chain lending and transactions.
Generalized: A protocol designed to transmit information across multiple blockchains. Due to its low complexity, this design enjoys a strong network effect-a single integration of the project allows it to access the entire ecosystem within the bridge. The disadvantage is that some designs usually trade-off between security and decentralization to achieve this scalability effect. This may have complex and unexpected consequences for the ecosystem. One of the use cases is IBC, which is used to send information in two heterogeneous chains (with a guarantee of finality).In addition, according to the mechanism used to verify cross-chain transactions, there are roughly three types of bridge designs:
Type 1: External validators & Federations (External validators & Federations)This type of bridging scheme usually has a group of verifiers that monitor the "mailbox" addresses on the source chain and perform operations on the target chain based on consensus. Asset transfer usually works like this: lock assets on the "mailbox", and then mint the same amount of assets on the target chain. These validators usually deposit separate tokens as collateral to ensure the security of the network.
Type 2: Light clients & RelaysParticipants monitor events on the source chain and generate encrypted packaging proofs about past events recorded on the chain. These proofs will be forwarded to the contract on the target chain (such as "light client") along with the block header, and then verify whether an event is recorded, and perform operations after verification. This design mechanism requires some participants to "relay" the block headers and proofs. Although users can "self-relay" transactions, there is indeed an active assumption that the relay will continue to forward data. This is a relatively secure bridging design because it guarantees the effective delivery of trustlessness without trusting intermediate entities. But it is also resource-intensive, because developers must build a new smart contract on each new target chain to parse the source chain's state proof; the verification process itself requires a large amount of gas.Type 3: Liquidity networksThis is similar to a peer-to-peer network, where each node acts as a "router", holding a "library" of source and target chain assets. These networks usually take advantage of the security of the underlying blockchain; through the use of locking and dispute mechanisms, it can be ensured that routers will not steal users' funds. Because of this, a liquid network like Connext may be a safer choice for users who transfer large amounts of value. In addition, this type of bridge may be most suitable for cross-chain asset transfer, because the assets provided by the router are the original assets of the target chain, rather than derivative assets that cannot be completely replaced by each other.
It should be noted that any given bridge above is a two-way communication channel. There may be independent models in each channel, so this classification cannot accurately represent mixed models such as Gravity, Interlay, and tBTC. Because they all have light clients in one direction and validator nodes in the other direction.In addition, the design of a bridge can be roughly evaluated based on the following factors:
Security: Trust and liveness assumptions, tolerance for malicious behavior, security and reflexivity of user funds.Speed: The delay time of transaction completion, and the guarantee of final certainty. There is usually a trade-off between speed and safety.
Connectivity: The choice of target chains for users and developers, and the different difficulty levels of integrating additional target chains.Capital efficiency: economic mechanism, which sets the transaction cost of capital and asset transfer required to ensure the security of the system.