[Discussion] Launching New Markets

Totally agree. We should and will launch more markets in the following weeks.
I think we will mix both markets that CEX listed and those that CEX not listed.
Personally I want to list 1inch right now, but we don’t have the price feed from Chainlink yet.

BTW, the result we got from the users is suggesting we list:

I like many of the concepts from the Delphi Digital Aave proposal and I’m looking forward to their ideas regarding PERP. It seems to be in line with the idea from @shumwhere to stake PERP tokens pr. pool and my thoughts regarding isolated insurance funds (risk management).

I like the idea of permission less listing, but it must not result in multiple pools for the same trading pair, which would result in fragmented liquidity.

Delphi Digital should also take into consideration that PERP might have multiple collateral types in the future. Should it be permission less to list new collateral types? Or is this something the DAO must approve?

I think it’s important to keep things simple in the beginning. We must be agile and be able to react quickly to changes. I’m ok with less decentralization in the beginning.

Kudos to @tongnk for the poll which resulted in the YFI listing.

1 Like

So from our conversations to date in discord as well as in forums it seems we have two types of markets:

  1. Governance run markets where there is a shared insurance pool (so the current BTC, ETH and YFI pairs).
  2. Private markets where there is an isolated pool similar to what @shumwhere discussed about.

I’ve been thinking more on point #1 as I suspect we just need more research from Delphi and from the community before we continue with point #2. Given this I’d like to propose for discussion a rough framework of things we look at for listing markets

New Governance Market Listing Criteria


The aim of this is to ideally keep the overhead relatively low. I’m proposing to have a number of criteria tokens have to meet before being allowed for a vote. I’ve used Santiment (https://app.santiment.net/) which has a free tier that we can ideally use to standardise. I know @Lanre has been looking at Nansen and other platforms to see what is the best one to use so maybe we can migrate later…

Out of Scope

I think there is probably another one for newly launched tokens but I’m proposing it should be out of scope for this given proposal


  • Num of active addresses: there’s an indicator for the number of active addresses over the last 24 hours. I think this is a good indicator of the potential pool of people who would be interested in trading this particular token
    • Proposed threshold: >1,000 wallets
  • Trading volume: should be relatively straightforward but I suspect that it should be high enough that we don’t need to delist it
    • Proposed threshold: 50m daily trading volume
  • Coin supply on exchange as a %: the hypothesis here is that people who trade on perp will be more likely to not use CEX but DEXes instead (and who’s to say those who use CEXes even know how to metamask). Given this I’d say we’d ideally want a decent threshold to be trading on-chain
    • Proposed threshold: below 50% (note this will give us target addressable market of ~25m daily trading volume if they meet the above proposed 50m daily trading volume)
  • Number of wallets + distribution: ideally we don’t want everything to belong to a single address or a number of whales and it’s well distributed. Haven’t really got a threshold to be proposed here but a metric may be the number of wallets

I’m quite sure our target audience are savvy defi users or Ethereum protocols (Harvest, YFI etc.). These two complement each other almost perfectly.

One of the greatest strengths with PERP is that defi protocols (yield optimizers) can easily integrate with the vAMMs. This will ensure that the funding rate is attractive for traders and that the price is always close to market price.

This would suggest supporting ERC-20 tokens that are broadly used in defi protocols. Personally, I would like to see other L1 tokens, e.g. LTC, DOT or even XRP, but I’m not sure there is a market for this. It will not be composable with other defi protocols.

I agree with @tongnk metrics, given that we are going for ERC-20 tokens in the beginning. If we list other L1 tokens or even stocks, then we must come up with other metrics.

I would argue that if the community decides to list stocks/equities, the first one that should be listed are indices like the the S&P 500(ES), QQQ, and DJI and not individual stocks like AAPL. Those can come later. The ES(SPX futures market) is probably the most heavily traded futures on the market and I imagine since equities are closed on weekends and holidays, I would think a lot of volume would occur during these times as there are nowhere else to trade ES futures. PERP would be one of the few places available to trade/hedge before the actual markets open. That being said, has it been discussed how oracles would work in these instances?

If PERP can launch ES futures on its platform, I think it would attract a lot of attention as well.

Yea this is an interesting point - was thinking how would after hours work? Like I know there is an after hours market but would you want the market to reflect the current market open/closing times or not…

It would be interesting to see if there is a market or not actually. Like BTC is not on the same chain but I guess we have wBTC

XRP at least currently has massive volumes on centralized exchanges. with 2 related markets in the Top 8 by volume. DOT is the 2nd leading candidate for the non-ERC20 option by trade volume. XRP also $2.5B daily (similar to ETH) on perpetual swaps.

It’s possible the interest does not translate over, but I don’t know of a better way to evaluate except these 2 likely to be high trade volume assets in the future. The good part for Perpetual Protocol is that it shows this cross-chain & non-Ethereum asset capability. So it’s like the 1st step before S&P500 indices etc. in the marketing sense.

Among the ERC20s, the centralized spot market seems to favor LINK, GRT – while via Uniswap volumes you could make a pretty even argument for almost any of the “blue chip” DeFi tokens. There are no obvious standout tokens from that group.

I also think it makes sense to try out with 1 non-ERC20 token (besides BTC). I’m afraid that our target audience hates XRP so much, that they will all short it. And with all the delisting of XRP, it might be difficult to get a good price feed in the future. LTC and DOT are good candidates.

LTC is already proven with a good volume and it’s basically just another version of BTC and should have been included during mainnet launch with BTC and ETH IMO. DOT however is entirely different. I say do both?

Between LTC & DOT, it seems like DOT is the one. Price is on the way up, there’s attention on the project, from the technical perspective it’s not stupid like LTC etc.

Have had a couple more suggestions from others about metrics we could look at:

  • Security audits done
  • Derivative volumes (if applicable)
  • Trading volume on DEXes

Ok so I thought I would just summarise all points into a template below. My question then is if this is too much work or not?

I personally would like to see a fleshed out proposal with charts etc so everyone can make an informed decision but can understand it can take a fair bit of work

The proposal seems fair for listing new pairs in the short term. Obviously longer term, the protocol will need stakeholders to vote with their PERP since this one allows anyone to make a proposal. I do think though PERP needs to list more pairs for trading synergy ASAP. Nobody trades only btc or only eth, the more pairs that are available, the more cross trading will occur with individual balances.

Maybe this is too much to start. But definitely important as there are more pairs added. I personally think DOT should be added asap. It would be great to have a non-ETH token available to trade on an ETH defi dapp. It’s already a top 10 asset and will bring a lot of attention to the protocol.