Single asset vaults usually choose from 2 types of tokens that represent user shares.

  • Tokens pegged 1:1 to underlying assets employing the rebase architecture. When underlying asset volume grows then the supply of such tokens is increased to hold 1:1 peg. Examples: AAVE's aTokens, Overnight's USD+;
  • Constant supply tokens representing user's share of a vault. When underlying asset volume grows then the token supply remains the same but the peg of the token to the underlying assets naturally increases. Examples: Compound's cToken.

What are the pros and the cons of the elastic supply tokens?

From the usability standpoint:

  • When a rebase token is provided to liquidity pools do additional difficulties emerge for the pool to preserve the interest for the user?
  • When an exact amount of a rebase token is sent to a recipient does the one get this precise amount? Actually behind the scene what is transferred is the principal – does rounding errors appear?
  • Also an additional interest gets accrued after the transfer which could bring difficulties to the accounting. Is there any bad experience around accounting on a rebase token?

From the engineering standpoint:

  • The rebase architecture brings additional complexity. What are gas spendings implications?
  • Are there any limitations on such architecture? What functionality is impossible to be implemented for a rebase token?


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.