Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

No secondary market for position tokens #111

Open
andr11111 opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 3 comments
Open

No secondary market for position tokens #111

andr11111 opened this issue Jun 8, 2020 · 3 comments

Comments

@andr11111
Copy link
Contributor

In the current implementation the orderbook holds orders that represent an offer to enter a contract that is active at the time the order is filled by the taker (current day contract). Current day MarketProtocol ERC20 position tokens are minted at the time of the order fill. There's currently no secondary market/orderbook for those position tokens - users and market makers alike have to hold those tokens until expiration in order to settle them.

This creates a capital efficiency and balance sheet risk challenges for market makers, since there's no way for them to offload tokens from the balance sheet. The only way a market maker can exit their position early is if during the same day they entered the position they enter an opposite position and trigger an early redemption in the market protocol by supplying both short and long position tokens - we need to think through the viability of this mechanism alone and whether another mechanism/market/orderbook is required.

@0xSSoul
Copy link
Member

0xSSoul commented Jun 9, 2020

I think the redemption method should work. Thus, 1. the order book is still for minting tokens only 2. the market maker will get new tokens (short or long position tokens) from the order book when his orders are filled. 3. The market maker redeems the tokens when he has long and short tokens simultaneously, which increases his capital efficiency.

@andr11111
Copy link
Contributor Author

So in your view this mechanism alone is sufficient (no need for a secondary order book?)

@0xSSoul
Copy link
Member

0xSSoul commented Jun 9, 2020

Yes. I think it is sufficient for the market maker. And the secondary order book mechanism is a little too complicated.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants