Yesterday I finished writing about the mutual aid plate model in three theoretical plates https://t.co/Fy1GMrooNY
But there are still many friends asking me @ark_money how to view it, today I will elaborate on this project:
First of all, I would like to reiterate that Money Ark is a classic mutual aid plate model with dividend plate features. Its main rules are as follows:
Deposit in USDC, the deposit amount is the total global debt (the money the system owes you), and the principal is locked, with a daily compound interest of 0.5%. Once withdrawn, it will be deducted from the total debt, equivalent to returning all your principal in 200 days.
Every seven days, at least $200 needs to be reinvested to continue the 0.5% compound interest, otherwise the total debt will stop accumulating compound interest.
10% of the USDC you deposit will be used as a reserve to cash out, and the remaining 85% will be used for "automatic repurchase" to buy $MARK. When the 10% reserve is insufficient for cashing out, the treasury will sell $MARK to cash out, so MARK is equivalent to an algorithmic stablecoin supported by "nominal" 85% cash of this project.
$MARK buy and sell transactions incur a 10% tax, with 5% distributed to holders and 5% added to the pool.
49% of the tokens are held by the "black hole" contract. When the received tokens exceed 51% of its holdings, it will automatically sell some $MARK for USDC and form an LP to add to the pool.
Let's remember these five rules.
In this tweet, I will only address one question: Where does the income come from? Where does the sufficient cash come from?
Previously, @Cook0x has already elaborated on the mechanism and provided his own answer in the article. However, I believe there are still some imperfections, so I will be more direct:
- The income clearly comes only from the latecomer's USDC funds. This project has clearly stated in the white paper that it is a mutual aid plate. When the USDC funds cannot pay off the total global debt (i.e., principal and interest), then it depends on whether the 10% total deposit + LP of $MARK is sufficient for payment.
Based on the current LP data, there is 1.2M USDC in the pool and a total TVL of 6M. Let's assume an extreme scenario: the current LP is considered as the initial LP value, with a deposit of only 1 unit of 10,000U and 10 units of 50,000U. The 10,000U does not reinvest, and the 50,000U reinvests for 52 weeks without withdrawal, with no other deposits during this period.
After 52 weeks, the total debt caused by compound interest for each 50,000U has reached 316,336.5U, so for 10 units, it is 3.16M.
Let's calculate. The total deposit in the plate is 610,000U, and the total reinvestment is 104,000U, which is 714,000U in total. 10% of this is 71,400U, and 85% repurchases 606,900U. Even with the initial 1.2M LP bottom pool, it can only pay out 1.87M, with a payout rate of 50%.
So, are we relying on 600,000U to pull out 1.8M of external liquidity bottom pool? Obviously not realistic. Therefore, sufficient payment is only a theoretical situation. In reality, the total global debt is much larger than the MARK bottom pool LP, and the funds that account for the majority of the total global debt persist in the lowest amount of reinvestment without external input, so it is impossible to pay in full.
- After looking at the liquidation model, we consider this question: How does the project team make money?
MoneyArk is not like mutual aid plates such as FOMO3D, with no team shares. So, does the team put their own money into the project early on, bearing a huge opportunity cost to profit?
What do you think?
In my analysis of the three-plate model, the lifeline of a mutual aid plate is arbitrage. So where is the arbitrage space in the five rules of this project?
That's right, it's in the third rule: 85% of the deposit will be used for "automatic repurchase" to buy $MARK.
You can check whether the project's contract is an agency contract, and then check the on-chain records of $MARK to see if the repurchase is done manually or automatically. The answer is clear at a glance. You might ask, what's the relevance of this? It's normal not to repurchase automatically.
If I tell you that when you deposit, 85% of the money goes into the project team's pocket, equivalent to a centralized fund pool in P2P, used to pull up $MARK as they wish?
If I were the project team, I would continuously make MARK move in a range, buy MARK at relatively low points, and then use the "85% pull-up funds" to pull up in large amounts at relatively high points, and then sell MARK for arbitrage. As long as the plate doesn't collapse, this operation can be repeated continuously. It's like putting an invisible siphon mechanism in this mutual aid plate, and the size and timing of the siphoning are at the team's discretion. This is much more enjoyable than openly siphoning 2% like FOMO3D.
When the plate's deposits are no longer moving, and MARK needs to be cashed out, you will only then realize that the 85% fund pool for protecting the plate has long been unilaterally depleted, and may not even be able to pay out 50%. You may then recall the words of the predecessors in the plate circle ten years ago: Don't panic, trust the leader! Our 3M will restart!
In conclusion
No, I did not intend to FUD MoneyARK, but rather to role-play as a malicious operator to deduce how to play this plate. Since it has a similar mining model, it should buy its tokens early after the IDO, wait for it to rise to induce deposits. When the TVL and LP sizes are imbalanced, and new deposits slow down while reinvestment and LP increments decrease, you must decisively withdraw.
I believe that when we study a plate, the best strategy is secondary market arbitrage, quickly replicate and launch a copycat plate, and then attract large funds to enter the Ponzi scheme.
If you have a development team and ideas, feel free to DM me on Twitter.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
