Your opinion prior to proposal submission for "DeFi investments platform for fiat-based users"

Hello Pyloners,

as advised in the submission form, I’d love to check our project with you guys first :slight_smile:

So, we are building “DeFi investments platform for fiat-based users” in a way where they could invest their fiat to DeFi yield without actually interacting with crypto directly. Our main focus and bet is bringing in new fiat money into crypto ecosystem by providing an easy to use and compliant way to do so. Small institutions will be our primary target audience. Abuot 20% of effort is also going to retail users aquisition.

The product will include DeFi packages where various protocols and assets would be packaged to make diff risk level offers (later we’ll introduce custom packages, where user will be able to make one’s own), then separatelly lending, staking, farming, even little NFT market mirror with filtered out legit NFTs.

Why do we need BTL token for this?

In absolute most cases our token is for reward programs, that will be fueled by a part of the revenue we generate as fees from our fiat users. So, it won’t only be some temporarry allo our marketing budget, but rather built-in method to always have the means to reward our BTL hodlers via reward programs (currenly: liquidity mining and guarantee fund staking).

So, what happens here is 1) crypto community enables us to build the platform, 2) we deliver the product for fiat users and earn fees (in fiat), c) exchange part of that into our token (thus creating some buying pressure form the platform itself) and d) reward our hodlers.

What’s up with Terra
We will launch our token as CW20 later this month, bridge it to other chains via TerraBridge just to make sure our fiat-based clients have lots of protocols to choose from not just Anchor’s almost 20% yield.
We’ll utilize UST and even recently upvoted EUT (yeah!) hopefully in most out multichain DeFi operations. Personally, I’m huge believer of the seigniorage pegging method mostly for not beign directly exposed to fiat itself, but rather having a consensus on the peg via Luna’s liquidity (wow wow wow!).

Who we are?

We actually represent a little ecosystem in itselt (all based in Lithuania, EU):

  • Bitlocus is crypto-to-fiat CEX established back in 2018 (operational since 2019 - we’ve built it in-house for a year) with full KYC, AML and EUR Sepa/Swift processing. Small in scale, local, but technically ir is all there.
    Our CeDeFi project will actually be built on top of our CEX and that basically means we have like 90% already ready for what we need to deliver the platform for fiat users.
  • Payrico is our close partner - EMI/banking service (hold same licence as Revulut used to have - also in Lithuania). Handy partner to have for crypto-related operations. Friendly and pro-crypto, but NOT aml blackhole :wink:
  • Ginger Fund. In our case this partner provides liquidity for our CEX.

I’m Arturas Bobinas (Business Development)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/arturasbobinas/

Wanna launch a pool on Pylon too, so would you support it?

1 Like

Hi and welcome.
Thank you for your efforts and reaching out to this community. I am just one small user of pylon protocol but I wanted to give my feed back so your team can make the appropriate choices. I personally would not put UST into a pool for a project like this. I wish you all the best.

Hi Arturas,

Thanks for bringing you proposal forward to the Pylon community. We are currently putting a lot of brain power into changing the structure and function of Pylon, so unfortunately most of the community is currently focused on that.

With this in mind, we are discussing a few different options for the direction we go with pools, so it would be worth while checking out any new governance votes that go through :slightly_smiling_face:.

I have a few questions regarding your project.

  • What is its name?
  • How big is the team?
  • What jurisdictions/countries would you aim to onboard?
  • what are the biggest challenges you face?

My understanding is that BTLs utility is as a reward for people using/joining your service, but in addition to this you will use some of the revenue (how much relative to the total?) from people using your platform to buy BTL and use that to reward long term BTL holders? You also aim to use BTL for LP and single sided staking rewards? Is this correct?

Hello,

  1. Bitlocus.com; BTL token; Seller Bitlocus OU (Estonian entity)
  2. 7 direct employees. Going to at least double in the upcoming months (devs, marketing, country managers/business developers)
  3. For fiat user base - Europe, for crypto - everyone that is not in the States and FATF list basically.
  4. Current challenges are public sales-related, then MVP, etc. Challenges are always there :wink:

Based on rough estimations (like average yield is 15%), the overall fees that would be used as rewards to (but all that is just speculation):
Liquidity miners - about 0.77% off our overall Deposits portfolio (if portfolio is 600M, then rewards per year is about 4.6M)
Guarantee fund stakers - 0.4 off our overall deposits portfolio (600M portfolio = about 2.2M in rewards) based on assumption, that 50% of our clients would opt in for Guarantee fund service (from fiat client’s standpoint)

I suggest to prepare a lightpaper, disclose team member competences and a clear tokenomic.
Currently new gateway proposals are not yet managed as a DAO (through governance) even if I am considering to propose an implementation of a parametrized gateway DAO (Could your team help? :slight_smile: ). I think that you need to contact some team members: posting in the telegram group would help.
In general the idea is that the interest rates of the ust locked in the pool are divided between the project and mine stakers (through buyback and redistribution). An additional reward for stakers come with an airdrop of your tokens (the amount is likely negotiated).
As you can see: twitter, web, TG/discord and lightpaper are required info in each gateway.
Personally, based on the maturity of the project, I would add an escrow to protect pool partecipants but it is not the case yet.

It is in the interest of Pylon stakers (which means of pylon itself) to have good projects in gateway and as much as possible. So, from my point of view you are very welcome.

Some links?

I am reading the docs now… i didnt check this answer. HOpe my previous has helped

Hello,
thanks for the reply. I’ll share links here anyway:

1 Like

Thanks for sharing the links. Will have a read and let you know what I think.

When would you be hoping to launch a pool?
How many BTL tokens would be available for the pool?
How many other public sale platforms/rounds are you having?

1 Like

have you contacted the team?

good questions.
I add also :when tge? Actually a pool can be launched well before the tge and pylon is very interesting in that case. The investors are compensated of being early joiners and are speculating on future market price.
@artbart

I would consider more tokens for public sales dedicated to pylon and pylon stakers airdrops afterwards.

we were planning 1.5M BTL = $30k ( at $0.02) to Pylon, but based on Woody’s comment I have forwarded and enlarged the allo to other platform.
If I can be assured we can have a pool on Pylon, I would try to get that allo back. But I need assurance asap :slight_smile: @Woody @blackbird

The overall public sale is 3%/15M BTL of total allo worth $300k @ $0.02
$150k - Dao Maker (with bridged BTL, bep20). Lead investor.
$50k - Gate (same)
$100k - TerraFormer (cw20)

As this would have to go to a governance vote, we can’t assure you anything.

In my opinion, I think the size of the rewards would present an issue for the community. If I was to theoretically consider investing in the BTL pool, I would need 1) a minimal number of people to join the pool also, 2) the BTL token to gain significant value by the time I access the token. For this reason I would likely pass on the pool. This is only my view however.

You are more than welcome to put your proposal up to a governance vote if you’re keen to involve the Pylon community. Who knows, others might feel very different to me. Either way, thanks for approaching the community and presenting your project. Whether you use Pylon or not I hope your project does well :grinning:

1 Like

thanks, Woody!
Looks like I’ll have to get back to Pylon a bit later, if possible since this is already too late for us at this stage.

keep also in mind that nexus will likely try a liquid gateway. This looks promising for post ido. For example if you have already issued your token and want access to fresh capital.
I suggest to check the ongoing votation and eventually look the nexus (psi) ‘experiment’.
My opinion is that the mechanism of the liquid gateway makes sense for cases different than current gateway: a token has to be already issued and the issuers looks for fresh cash. When an arbitrageur sees liquid token - real token pair mispriced arbitrages. Example real token falls, you take liquid one putting ust in gateway and sell it for the real as they should always be 1-1.
you can read the presentation better in the forum for details.
In case keep in mind that you need to commit your token BTL (let’s call LBTL the liquid one) to:

  • gateway
  • BTL LBTL pool (a minimum liquidity is needed, fees for you will come from volume and other people will join the pool)
  • mine stakers
    you can follow gateway psi from nexus to assess how it works.
    As a mine staker I would consider a minimum commitment for a gateway something with a reasonable possibility of achieving 5-10mn locked UST in perspective. 10mn for you would mean around 1mn of fresh cash in 1 year (considering that it doesnt get locked in one shot)