What makes Maya Protocol more than just a “THORChain” fork
Hi guys, we can all agree that Cross chain DEX’s play a huge role in helping crypto achieve full financial autonomy, in this post, I discuss why I’m watching Maya Protocol a Cross Chain DEX in development, perhaps it might interest you especially if you already hold $RUNE$1.160 and know about THORChain.
THORChain is the apex leader when it comes to offering decentralized AMM liquidity protocol for exchanging native assets across chains without wrapping, is permissionless, is censorship resistant…….AND does a good job at it.
Why should anyone care about an alternative if there ever exists one? For example, many people know Maya protocol to be a fork, an alternative to THORChain.
Fork Yes, Alt No.
Yes….no….but more than that…
This is a misconception that stems from the fact that Maya protocol like THORChain will offer cross chain native swaps protocol, which in theory is the only thing they have in common, whereas technically, Maya protocol and THORChain are two different entities where Maya exists to transcend THORChain’s capabilities using THORChain’s technology.
The way I see it, there’s THORChain and there’s Maya protocol, what differentiates them is in their mechanics and value props. As I said earlier, THORChain’s technology, yes, but major differences in mechanics like token system, where THORChain has a single token system I.e RUNE, Maya protocol is a double token system, Maya and CACAO. Read more about this here.
Another distinguishing value props that separates Maya protocol from being just an “alternative” to THORChain is their liquidity mechanism. Nodes bond RUNE to economically secure THORChain’s network. On Maya, CACAO is also bonded to secure the network and give it economic advantage, like THORChain.
However, at the time of writing this post, about $115m worth of RUNE is bonded in THORChain. While this huge amount of capital is sitting in the THORChain vault, Maya protocol extends its applicability by putting such capital to work as liquidity for the protocol, further deepening the liquidity for the network.
Take note, capital being idle is not a bad thing, infact, “Idle” is not the precise word to use there because the capital from the nodes bonds are doing what they should, economically securing the network, full on! But what if, just what if we can extend that a bit further?
What if bonded capital can generate revenue for the node operators by putting those in bonds to work as protocol owned liquidity while still economically securing the network? Who says we can’t do both? Does this still sound like THORChain to you?
As “bonds” deepen the protocols liquidity, token swaps are executed with lesser slippage, which in turn makes trading more attractive which in turn generates revenue for the liquidity providers, and node operators as swapping fees get accumulated. All nice and good in Theory, but we know how these things needs real life simulation too.
In my opinion, Maya protocol is taking on giant strides as they are trying to be different from THORChain by attempting totally uncharted mechanics and convincing people to look at its value props, which is not always easy, for many, Maya is just a fork living in THORChain’s shadow.
The truth is Maya protocol has its own value props on the table, which needs to be communicated widely. How much of a feat that will be, time will tell. I’ve been paying attention to the ecosystem and will continue to. If the world doesn’t succumb to censorship, if there’s ever going to be a truly decentralized future, Cross chain dex’s will play a vital role and projects like THORChain and Maya have a foot in the door. How is this not cool?
There are many other factors that make MAYA protocol stand out. From the token economics down to the security this post just highlights one of it. This is not a financial advice but my opinion based on research.
Thanks for reading. Kindly share your thoughts
To follow Maya Protocol on Twitter.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta