✅ [RFC] Sunsetting mBTC in light of recent renBTC bridge announcement

Summary

This RFC would like to quickly gather comments in light of the recent announcement of the renBTC shutdown. The new token that should replace renBTC will not be ready before the legacy token will be sunset and thus is not feasible to replace the current one in the basket.

It is therefore suggested to officially sunset mBTC as a product and not continue to migrate the assets to a new basket.

Abstract

The Ren Protocol recently announced the sunset of the Ren 1.0 network.

It was also stated that:

“As compatibility between Ren 1.0 and 2.0 cannot be guaranteed, holders of Ren assets should bridge back to native chains ASAP, or risk losing them!”

As the timeframes are very short and the mBTC basket holds renBTC, it is highly recommended to withdraw all assets from there and all related contracts.

Due to the low liquidity of mBTC in general, the recent announcement of renBTC, and the fact that there are not many bitcoin-like assets remaining on Ethereum, it is recommended to not pursue a new version of mBTC at this stage.

Motivation

mBTC has relatively low liquidity already on Ethereum, and the concept of a diversified bitcoin asset did not gain traction. Currently there are only 29.44 mBTC (or ~$507.98k) in the contract. Together with the recent shutdown announcement of renBTC, it would makes sense to put mBTC into a legacy status and not to replace it with a new basket of assets. A migration would also be unwise, as it would take considerable time that we don’t have, and the benefit would be also seemingly low for the protocol as a whole.

Pros

  • Less complexity of mStable products
  • Cost savings
  • Further strengthening and allocating more time to Meta Vaults

Cons

  • One less mAsset to offer to users

Next Steps

It is suggested that the community comment on this RFC in the coming days, and bearing no significant opposition or change in ideation, we would move ahead with this RFC in the coming weeks and create a formal draft proposal on Github to be used for review.

1 Like

Thanks for posting this @dimsome

I am generally in favour of replacing products rather than sunsetting them, but seeing how Badger pretty much captured the entire Bitcoin market on Ethereum Mainnet, and the yield for the yellow coin is rather slim amongst all chains and products, I think it is safe to say that mBTC or any Bitcoin related Meta Vault (unless easily integrated via ERC-4626) is definitely not worth pursuing at this stage and place in time.

In favour of sunsetting this product and perhaps incentivizing a swap and migration into one of our Meta Vault products either via MTA or Quest bonus multiplier as to not loose a potential retention of funds in our own ecosystem.

I am in support of sunsetting this product to allow us to focus on Meta Vaults.

1 Like

I like that migration idea actually, but it’s probably a heavier lift for the devs than they are wanting to take on vs the likelihood of a lot of value taking advantage of it. :frowning:

Thanks for all the comments. And I would do agree on the notion of a migration, however there are a few issues.

What are we migrating towards? renBTC 2.0 will not be there in time. And we have no Meta Vault that could easily be spun up.

Migration to the existing one is a different asset and in that case it won’t be a migration.

So it won’t make much sense, the upsite even when solving the question is not there. There is little of a business case.

For the record, I agree with @dimsome. Migration for the sake of migration doesn’t make any sense, and I’d rather focus the development efforts in thing that are more likely to find product market fit.

1 Like

In favor of sunsetting.

Thanks for commenting everyone and Happy Friday!

Looks like we got enough positive resonance here, so I’ll be marking this as approved, and we’ll be crafting a relevant MIP in the coming days for this!

Have a wonderful Christmas time guys! :innocent: