Comment on page
Whitelisting and volatile assets
Whitelisting addresses and volatile assets as collateral
While there will be one contract per vault type handling positions, some collateral types can be made permissioned meaning that only some pre-defined addresses would be allowed to borrow from it.
For some other collateral assets, only some whitelisted addresses could be allowed to participate in the liquidation of unhealthy vaults.
In both cases, governance can choose which addresses are whitelisted and whether to keep the whitelist or not.
Having a whitelist on the addresses which can borrow agTokens and interact with the borrowing module can serve different use cases.
The whitelisting of addresses who can borrow agTokens can be used to deploy specific collateral types (like real-world assets for example). In this case, governance may need to keep tight control on who can borrow to avoid exploits.
A DAO or a company could have a significant amount of a specific token. With this whitelisting feature, the protocol would build a tailored vault type, with specific parameters and potentially pre-defined spending conditions of the loan.
Let's say that a company has ETH in reserves, and wants to provide liquidity in the agEUR/USDC Uniswap V3 pool. In this case, we could imagine a specific vault type that could only use the borrowed funds to provide liquidity to the UniV3 agEUR/USDC pool with a pre-defined ratio. In this case, this vault could benefit from a higher collateral factor or a lower stability fee for example.
We can also imagine the case of a DAO with governance tokens reserves. In this case, the DAO might want to benefit from the use of a stablecoin for its operations, or to invest it in pre-defined strategies. The protocol would be able to build a tailored vault, that would allow to borrow agEUR from this governance token, but at a lower collateral factor.