Thank you for starting the discussion, I guess everyone in the community is curious about what’s coming next. As was already mentioned in Discord and here – it’s a great opportunity to reflect and revise past decisions and approaches that might not be well-suited for the current market state.
I believe that two main OKRs should be: (1) re-gain prior market share and community trust and (2) scale community and ecosystem growth.
I’m confident that whatever we see in v2, will definitely impose back the competition to the lending market. Also, many can consider both a protocol and a project battle-tested however for a more broad audience value weighted lindyness is required.
As per specific practical actions and protocol/project priorities, I’d suggest the following:
1. Risk-adjusted incentives alignment
Unfortunately, history showed that solely incentivizing TVL without sufficient recourse and backstop (reserves, insurance fund, circuit breakers, printing model, faster emergency shutdown, etc) is potentially fatal. If the hacker hadn’t returned funds, the hole would’ve been ∼ x37.1 higher than reserves+sherlock payout (2m+4.4m) or ∼ x5.9 higher than reserves+sherlock payout+stables in treasury (2m+4.4m+28m). This essentially means that it would’ve been not possible to close the gap via printing+auction (e.g. Maker’s model) or any other external funding.
So the trivial yet necessary solution might be to launch an insurance fund (e.g. Aave’s model) and incentivize it. Also, not a novel idea, but allowing to deposit weth<>eul Uni position might kill 2 birds with 1 stone.
Sidenote: also adding the ability to vote/delegate with Uni weth<>eul position might kill the third bird as in token liquidity not spending treasury funds on it.
2. Multi-chain expansion, but done more smoothly
The general idea here is obvious, especially with eip-4844 coming, so it’s definitely one of the key opportunities for growth. However, one could argue that the pre-launch of a separate instance on BSC was debatable and many questions within the community were raised to design a more coherent multi-chain strategy.
Considering that alternative solutions and protocols in general already started their path to seamless multi-chain experience (i.e, Aave portals, Compound III, Uniswap bsc debate), I would suggest that Euler also has to have the ability to transfer assets between markets
3. User personas
I would argue that DeFi protocol should win the hearts and minds of OG advanced users and protocols first and then scale on a broader audience. So the path can look like this: mainnet with more complicated ui and analytics–>arbitrum/optimism–>bsc + simplified UI. Euler v1 definitely did a great job here that’s why I think that re-launch should be done in the same way.
4. Governance, grants, and community incentives
This is always a highly debatable and mainstream topic because (1) ahh I’m coooordinating; community ownership; decentralization, but also (2) everyone knows that team and stakeholders almost always have the final word, but that’s totally fine and moreover it should be this way in the beginning.
There were several initiatives to launch grant and delegate incentive programs, so I think it was the right direction.
Summary:
Circling back to the @Matt_StableLab questions, the things I like the most:
- rigorous protocol risk management;
- sophisticated UI, simulation mode, comprehensive protocol data, and personal user analytics;
- dynamic and adaptive project style; integrations with niche protocols like Squeeth, Yield.
The key areas of improvement and growth could be: a backstop/insurance fund, seamless multi-chain experience, and community incentives.