This past week had a lot going on—a bit of traveling and a whole lot of hacking for the ETHForAll hackathon. Finally managed to get a submission through even though in the last moment.As for T[C]S (TheCarbonSwap or should I start writing it as “the [carbon] swap”?) I’ve been looking into some of the pros and cons I mentioned last week regarding the approach I should be taking. On further digging, I realized that soft-forking Curve or building pools on Curve to create T[C]S may not be the most efficient solution, because (1) I’ve never used Vyper earlier (2) Didn’t feel flexible enough for my needs. Thereon, I’ve been looking into Balancer Pools and figuring out if it will be easier to build a protocol built on top of Balancer. The protocol seems to be much more flexible to be built on top of and is written Solidity (makes things much much easier).

This of course presents me with the issue of incentives. Why (if T[C]S is built on top of Balancer or Curve Pools) should a user use T[C]S rather than just directly depositing liquidity directly into Balancer?

Currently, I do not have an answer to this, but I am looking into potential solutions. I’m identifying how other protocols like KlimaDAO have tackled this issue. One way could be a rebasing token, but would this make the protocol unnecessarily complex?

Every step or layer I add to T[C]S, I need to remember to K.I.S.S (Keep it Simple Stupid).

Curve Finance seems to be a hassle to be integrating due to its use of Vyper, so now I’m considering the move to using Balancer’s infrastructure to build out my protocol. Concerns about incentives and keeping the project simple enough have also come up.

Baby steps, but I feel once everything is thought out, building this out would be much more streamlined.

Why not subscribe and maybe even collect this post?