Reading time saved: 1 minutes
6 replies, 1514 views, 4 likes
The discussion focused on a high slippage rate of 13% reported when repaying GUSD Borrow with WBTC or ETH, traced back to the use of a suboptimal Uniswap pool. Solutions proposed include unlisting GUSD from repaywithcollateral and switching to Paraswap, but complexities such as onchain and offchain routing make the process challenging.
The discussion primarily revolved around the high slippage rate of nearly 13% reported by1337(https://governance.aave.com/u/1337) when repaying GUSD Borrow with WBTC or ETH. This issue was not observed with DAI or USDC Borrow balances. The problem was traced back to the use of a specific Uniswap pool for GUSD that was not optimal1. Sakulstra confirmed this and suggested that the issue stems from the use of Uniswap v2 pools for repaywithcollateral, which are almost empty for some assets. They proposed that GUSD should be unlisted from repaywithcollateral, a measure previously taken with certain other assets3.
The discussion further delved into potential solutions.1337(https://governance.aave.com/u/1337) suggested switching to the optimal Paraswap pool. However, Sakulstra clarified that the process isn't as straightforward as changing an address. The current system uses an onchain router, while Paraswap relies on offchain routing5. They also mentioned a proposal to switch to Paraswap, which would use the Paraswap API instead of onchain routing7.
In conclusion,1337(https://governance.aave.com/u/1337) acknowledged the explanation and noted that a resolution seems to be in progress. However, the timeframe for the completion of this process remains unclear8. This discussion highlights the complexities involved in managing slippage rates and the potential solutions that are being considered.
Posted 2 years ago
Last reply 2 years ago
Summary updated 2 months ago
Last updated 09/12 13:53