I would like to open up the conversation regarding insurance for UST deposits into Pylon Gateway pools.
Now that Risk Harbor’s Ozone has launched, perhaps we can think about covering UST deposits.
This could bring in new investors who would prefer to have coverage on their UST.
It remains to be seen how much coverage Ozone will provide in their pools. So far they have only opened a test pool that got emptied within 5 minutes.
They plan on opening a much larger pool within the next couple weeks, as stated on their Discord channel. However, we have to see if demand empties that pool quickly, too.
What are people’s thoughts on this?
Perhaps Pylon could offer UST depositors the option of insuring their capital.
Also, perhaps this could be even engineered to provide income for Pylon directly on Pylon’s platform, and/or also working with Ozone.
I’m not sure where I stand, personally, on enabling insurance on my deposit, if it was available.
However, I’m thinking primarily about…
Who will pay for the insurance?
- Would it be deducted from my rewards in the pool
- Would it be the “project” opening the pool that would have to pay for it, from their yield
- Would Pylon pay for it, lowering the amount of capital coming back for Treasury
- A mix of the above
Also, random thoughts:
- Can I activate / deactivate it after my deposit, or can I only enable it when depositing
- Should an entire pool be “insured” by default, or is it up to each depositor to opt in / out
- What to do / how to handle if Ozone runs out of coverage, while an “insured pool” is active?
How do you envision that:
“Also, perhaps this could be even engineered to provide income for Pylon directly on Pylon’s platform”
Great initiative talking about this, let’s see what we can come up with all together
I like the idea. It strengthens the notion of “lossless” investments. I think it goes a long way to help onboard non-crypto native users, especially when Pylon’s products grow.
I think it should be an optional thing, like what Anchor has set up. Alternatively, pools could be set up to have an “insured pool” and “non-insured pool”. I don’t think any more income for Pylon should be made from people utilising insurance. Pylon would stand to naturally increase its income via increasing new users from this.
Would be good to know if the team have already thought about this option.
I agree with Woody. I like this idea as well. Since the main draw of Pylon gateway is as a lossless investment utility, I think optional insurance would definitely go a long way in giving more peace of mind. My only concern is that we want to make this simple. We don’t want to scare people away because of added complexity.
If it is something like Anchor has set up, then it would have a really friendly and simple UX. I am not sure with Ozone, but I think with something like Nexus Mutual it might be possible to just insure yourself within the pool.