No reason that hack recovery and redeploying a stable coin have to be mutually exclusive. USP was killing it, yep there was an error in the code, but as a protocol, we should lick our wounds and move on. The longer we delay building, the more this protocol will fall behind. A PTP stable coin will make the protocol stronger and drive revenue for vePTP holders.
I fully agree that USP will have to be introduced in the future as innovation and capital efficiency are the hallmarks of this protocol… but we also need to seek stability as currently the TVL of the main pool is low and the risk is that of an outflow of capital for fear of the new introduction of USP and which in any case should go through a new audit
I dont think its a good idea to lauch a stablecoin when regulations and CBDCs are at the front door. We should wait.
Keep in mind the best way that people who lost money in the hack to get made “whole”, if they ever do, is to have a vibrant, profitable, and growing Playtapus protocol. If we are so myopically fixated on hack recovery that it stunts growth and innovation…we’ve all lost and you might as well just write off whatever you’ve lost.
We should be bold: start fee share and go cross-chain asap.
Agree with the idea as long as “ASAP” includes extra due diligence on the contract and auditing. A 2nd hack would kill platypus.
Thank you for bringing up this topic in the forum. We are still believe in the impressive benefits that USP could bring to Platypus!
While it is not our first priority, we are planning to submit a new proposal for USP 2.0 deployment. As part of the USP design, we will implement a separate pool for it to ensure better risk management.
Of course, all decisions will ultimately be left to the community to make. Cheers!
A separate post-hack pool may be the best solution for separating risk-averse investors. But will it be a pool with all the stables (like the main pool) ?.. I’m curious to understand how two similar pools in terms of capital efficiency and swap level will eventually be managed?.. the first solution with a single pool I think in terms of capital efficiency it was the best but rightly so but it also involved investors who did not want to borrow USP
We will share more info soon.
Stay tuned, my fren!
The 1st hack has practically already blown out the light for Platypus if we don’t reinstall the capital efficient innovation, including an extra audit of course.
Did you find the hackers? The stable coin design seemed to be interesting for the whole market, but the fault was just stupid (sry for the hard words).
We need some more quality development before reinventing USP.
Sup! I think another round of audit is needed before USP 2.0.
Based. I support this wholeheartedly.
The original USP was audited we all know how that turned out. What makes you think repeating this is going to make a difference ?
The original audit was either faulty or the code audited was not used, both of which are down to human error - why trust it not to happen again ?
Okay, but Platypus was also written by human.
With all normal precautions I agree that it should be implemented again in a new dedicated pool as indicated by @MrOtterfoot
Implementing in a new, separate pool is irrelevant. Doing that would just make it seem as if USP was a high risk/unreliable product to be kept away from.
Absolutely any further hack/security breach would kill Platypus instantly.