Why overcomplicate it, @RuneKek?
@SkyEcosystem is solid — we’ve looked multiple times at building on top of $USDS, but the main limitation has always been the complexity around proper due diligence.
That doesn’t mean accounting “optimisations” can’t be legitimate it’s just that the yield isn’t a proper risk premium relative to the complexity involved, unless you have an in-house legal team ( we don’t kek).
One of the real magics of @HyperliquidX is its simplicity.
The market impact of AF might be overstated by CT, but the beauty is everyone gets it.
@chameleon_jeff likes HYPE.
Jeff buys HYPE.
I need to buy HYPE if I want to be Jeff-aligned.
It’s that simple.
With Rune, it’s less clear how we can align to your exact PNL.
We have a lot of respect for what Maker built over the years: not saying it’s illegitimate, just unnecessarily overcomplicated.
Great graphic by @baynPSD

We were here: Maker/Sky launches Stars. Stars need to hold capital to serve as first loss. Stars have no capital. Sky lends them the capital. So Stars can take risks, collect fees on Sky’s money despite not putting their own money at risk.
Now we are here: Sky wants to launch more Stars (who also will need to be loaned money to hold as a capital buffer); will authorize negative Surplus Buffer to lend capital it doesn’t have to new Stars
You can see why this is perhaps a problem.
Imagine Sky sends $25m to two new Stars. As of today, Sky has $28.5m, so the Surplus Buffer would lose $50m and go to -$21.5m, and each new Star would go from $0 to $25m.
Sky considered Stars to be direct subsidiaries that it fully controls. It does this to net out the money sent to new Stars. If you add up Sky’s and every Star’s Surplus Buffers, any movement between the two officially nets out to $0 in change.
When Sky’s Surplus Buffer cannot go negative, then this is a legitimate (if contradictory to the whole point of Stars) accounting characterization.
Once it can go negative, you are now printing unbacked USDS, which is then being used as a backstop for that Star’s investments.
We’re now in strange intercompany accounting choices. Stars are ostensibly semi-independent (that’s why they are required to emit governance tokens). But Sky consolidates the Surplus Buffers in the official reporting.
This is very aggressive accounting to record a loan of USDS to a Star if Sky doesn’t actually have that USDS on hand. It’s a kind of fiction if you launch 17 new Stars, each with, say, $2m and Sky sitting on -$5.5m.
Even Sky isn’t supposed to just mint USDS out of thin air. I suppose if you go by the choice of consolidated accounting it wouldn’t really mean Sky + all Stars is insolvent but it does materially misrepresent the amount of capital backstopping the $1 value of DAI/USDS by using this negative funding strategy to capitalize all these new subsidiaries.
Much less important, it also calls into question what the Star-level gov tokens are for and why Sky lets Stars siphon off fees if they are, as claimed, a consolidated balance sheet.

1,7 t.
4
Tällä sivulla näytettävä sisältö on kolmansien osapuolten tarjoamaa. Ellei toisin mainita, OKX ei ole lainatun artikkelin / lainattujen artikkelien kirjoittaja, eikä OKX väitä olevansa materiaalin tekijänoikeuksien haltija. Sisältö on tarkoitettu vain tiedoksi, eikä se edusta OKX:n näkemyksiä. Sitä ei ole tarkoitettu minkäänlaiseksi suositukseksi, eikä sitä tule pitää sijoitusneuvontana tai kehotuksena ostaa tai myydä digitaalisia varoja. Siltä osin kuin yhteenvetojen tai muiden tietojen tuottamiseen käytetään generatiivista tekoälyä, tällainen tekoälyn tuottama sisältö voi olla epätarkkaa tai epäjohdonmukaista. Lue aiheesta lisätietoa linkitetystä artikkelista. OKX ei ole vastuussa kolmansien osapuolten sivustojen sisällöstä. Digitaalisten varojen, kuten vakaakolikoiden ja NFT:iden, omistukseen liittyy suuri riski, ja niiden arvo voi vaihdella merkittävästi. Sinun tulee huolellisesti harkita, sopiiko digitaalisten varojen treidaus tai omistus sinulle taloudellisessa tilanteessasi.