Post #452

The following post is from Hyperliquid Labs. Thanks to everyone who shared thoughtful responses to the proposed aligned stablecoins proposal. As a reminder, offchain conditions are ultimately voted upon by validator quorum, as any such conditions are not able to be reflected directly in protocol execution. Like on most other blockchains, independent validators on Hyperliquid achieve consensus on a self-contained state machine’s execution. This state machine’s evolution is entirely onchain. In the case of the offchain conditions for an aligned stablecoin, this evolution is driven by validator vote. The following reflect views expressed by Hyperliquid Labs after careful consideration about the best outcome for the protocol and users. There was pushback on each one of the offchain criteria. Before discussing the detailed points, it is helpful to refine the overarching purpose of the proposal. At its core, Hyperliquid is a permissionless protocol. Unlike a centralized entity that can enter into contracts and agreements, a protocol can only reflect neutral rules. Hyperliquid's rules should optimize for the long-term prosperity of users, while adhering to the principles of fairness and transparency. The grand vision: Stablecoins are increasingly recognized as an important development and significant opportunity, with traditional finance embracing the technology as an upgrade to the digital dollar. It's unclear what the exact outcome will be: payments, neobanks, corporate treasuries, or something else entirely. But it is clear that there is an opportunity to leverage Hyperliquid's unique distribution to become the stablecoin chain of choice for the next billion users. Alignment as a protocol feature is to ensure that stablecoin empires built on Hyperliquid do not simply take advantage of Hyperliquid as a stepping stone, but rather build and grow with the protocol in perpetuity. Alignment should carefully thread a needle. It should not unnecessarily box out deployers of other stablecoins or other assets who want to expand into Hyperliquid as part of a multifaceted growth strategy. It should preserve a level playing field for compliant alternatives. However, it should be firm, opinionated, and take a bold stance, given what is at stake for the protocol. The blockchain that houses the future of finance should also be the premier stablecoin chain. The general feedback, not tied to specific points: 1. Offchain requirements are overly restrictive. The protocol should only enforce strictly onchain requirements such as staking requirements and yield share. Onchain requirements are almost always preferable to offchain ones. They are simpler, objective, and do not require validator enforcement. However, the real world is inherently nuanced and complex. Given the opportunity size of becoming the premier stablecoin chain and the difficulty with associated yield being fully offchain, the protocol must compromise with a system that accomplishes the goal of true alignment. The only obvious way to accomplish this goal is through validator quorum enforcing offchain conditions. That being said, the feedback is duly noted that conditions should be as simple as possible while accomplishing these goals. 2. The requirements are too strict and will dampen the quality of projects ready to immediately deploy on Hyperliquid.