Building index-tracking assets on top of options instead of debt

Thanks — really appreciate the thoughtful read, and glad the TRP framing resonates. We thought about it similarly: the objective is not to take optionality away from users, but to add a new, tradable risk-transfer primitive on top of the underlying asset. Philosophically, our approach is to allow users to very simply pick risk payoffs that are appealing to them without having to worry about the mechanics of how to do it. For instance, are you in RiskON mode or RiskOFF mode? (our P & N equivalents are RiskOFF and RiskON respectively).

And yes, your question on rebalancing incentives / MEV / protocol extractiveness is exactly the right one. It is something we spent a lot of time thinking about, especially because TRP adds more structure than a maturity-only P/N primitive due to its rolling epochs, synthetic collar, and path-dependent barrier.

The main way TRP tries to minimize that risk is through atomic rebalancing. The rebalance is not intended to be a sequence of user-routed transactions where a keeper, searcher, or protocol actor can capture value between steps. It is a mechanical state transition from one epoch to the next, executed atomically, so the previous token values roll into the new epoch without exposing users to avoidable execution MEV during the rollover. Value is naturally preserved in the rollover, the value of a user’s claim on the underlying at the end of an epoch is transferred atomically into equivalent value at the beginning of the new epoch.

The second piece is the marketplace design. TRP uses dynamic AMM fees that increase during higher-volatility periods. That matters because volatility is exactly when LPs face more adverse selection, stale-pricing risk, and impermanent-loss pressure. Higher fees during those periods help protect liquidity providers and make the market more resilient when the embedded option values are moving quickly.

There is more detail in the white paper here: https://docs.riskprotocol.io/protocol-papers-and-user-guides/whitepaper and the dynamic AMM fees here https://docs.riskprotocol.io/protocol-design-and-specifications/risk-marketplace/dynamic-lp-fees. The protocol is also running on Sepolia testnet if you are curious about the implementation.

3 Likes

This is just brilliant - the liquidatee is indeed limited or they should be; hence why some of us don’t use it. The option to use leverage is being discounted as being both integral & of value entirely!

The bound should be on attempts, not some abstract monetary integral.

The normalizing of derivative contracts marketed to people who have no idea how to actually optimize their position & avoid liquidation (settle on delivery – take it and hold it or don’t sell it) certainly has its advantages; overall it’s barely a net positive, though. I don’t think we should make it a habit of treating classic parts of the transactions (as they’ve existed for human history) as some extremity of eschew that we can just coverup entirely & claim to have it been absorbed in another area while subtracting actual option actual choice from the equation. That’s not going to be good for crypto.

I have a client that I think addresses the root cause fairly & plan to offer it either on X or maybe just share it here first. I don’t know where v stands on the intellectual property debate; open-sourced or not, I still don’t believe removing one of the mechanisms (I know TRP is the opposite & am very muc interested - can’t wait to read the white paper!) is beneficial for either side. In fact, I know it isn’t.

The entire “in the trenches” in fact, I’d argue, could be replaced with this tool that I’ve developed. Or I should say, with a little work I have no doubt that it could & SHOULD replace the in the trenches format of betting against coins successfully onboarding. I don’t think it’s a poor design; it’s just failed culturally… hence, why so much of my work is centered on establishing High Trust Societal Norms in crypto.

## Making synthetic tokens perpetual

Nice framing. The maturity in this design is doing two jobs at once: it lets the oracle resolve slowly, and it forces the holder to roll. I think one can keep the payoff and get rid of the maturity, at the cost of needing a continuous oracle. This might solve the roll-over cutoffs and make these markets more liquid.

### Value tranching

Locking 1 ETH and splitting it at a cutoff `S` could be called a **junior / senior tranche** of the collateral. With ETH/USD and a cutoff `S = $1500`:

- **Senior** = `min(x, S)` — capped at the cutoff. The “stable” leg.

- **Junior** = `max(0, x − S)` — the residual / call-like leg. The leveraged leg.

- **Senior + Junior = x** = the value of 1 ETH. Always fully collateralized; undercollateralization isn’t representable. Equivalent to `P + N`.

Worth keeping the option decomposition in view, because it tells you who pays whom: the junior `max(0, x − S)` is a **long call** (long convexity), and the senior `min(x, S) = S − put(S)` is **cash minus a short put** (short convexity).

At an oracle price of **$3000**, the 1 ETH of collateral splits into **$1500 senior + $1500 junior**. Because we’re well above the cutoff, the senior is flat there and **the junior absorbs the local moves**: ETH ticks up or down, the junior responds to it first. Same as your `N`.

### Making it perpetual + self-balancing

Two mechanisms, both borrowed from perpetual futures rather than from dated options:

**Perpetual: junior funds senior, which is just the option premium made continuous.** Note that even with synthetics with maturity, there’s *already* an implicit junior to senior payment. The junior is a long call, so it **pays** time decay; the senior is short a put, so it **collects** it. The long-convexity leg pays theta to the short-convexity leg; it’s simply baked into the prices the legs mint and trade at, and settled once, at maturity.

Drop the maturity and you can no longer bake that premium into a terminal settlement. You pay it **continuously**, as a marked funding accrual that transfers NAV from the junior tranche to the senior. **Funding is the perpetualized option premium.** This is exactly the dated-future to perpetual-future move: a dated future has no funding (its basis just converges to zero at expiry); a perp needs periodic funding *because* it never expires. Same here, the funding rate is what replaces convergence-at-maturity, and the continuous accrual *is* the roll.

**Self-balancing — the market sets the funding rate.** Let anyone permissionlessly mint or redeem either tranche against the underlying ETH. The **ratio of junior NAV to senior NAV** sets the funding rate the junior pays the senior.

  • Higher Junior vs Lower Senior NAV → Higher funding rate (to incentivize more Senior vs Junior)
  • Lower Junior vs Higher Senior NAV → Lower funding rate (to incentivize less Senior vs Junior)

This balances the market continuously.

### What this gives you

**Perpetual risk tranching at NAV.** The junior is **never liquidated as a one-time cutoff event**, there’s no strike date and no trigger. The exposure simply re-prices continuously. What it *does* still cost is **volatility decay**: holding a fixed exposure target on a volatile underlying via continuous rebalancing bleeds value ∝ σ².

**Liquid stablecoin.** The senior tranche in this example behaves like an ETH backed, yield bearing stablecoin (dependent on the oracle price). CDP designs have the same fragility, but only one sided liquidity. Only borrowers can mint or redeem the stablecoin (unless they are being liquidated). In the design above, senior tranche holders can always mint and redeem against ETH at 100% capital efficiency. The cost being borne by leverage token holders (by ceding control of the leverage in their ETH exposure).

### Risks

- **Oracle risk.** A continuous oracle can have a price that’s off vs the true underlying. Someone then mints/redeems the cheap tranche to harvest the mispricing. This is the *same* failure mode as oracle risk in lending, but now affects both sides (not just the borrower via liquidations)

- **Rebalancing risk.** This is the quadratic-decay channel: users exiting the senior or entering the junior *at an inconvenient time* accelerate the junior’s volatility decay. The decay is structural, but its rate is path-dependent on when others rebalance.

### Potential protections

- **Faster, more trustworthy oracles**, the kind used in perps markets

- **Edge-case gates.** If collateral value falls hard, disallow junior redemption (a max-LTV-style protection, exactly as in lending) so the senior buffer can’t be drained when value is falling.

- **Let a secondary market trade away from the oracle.** allow the tranche tokens to trade at a **premium or discount to the oracle price** via a bonding curve (slippage on entry/exit). This is the continuous analog of your prediction-market pre-filtering: if the market thinks the oracle is wrong, the senior’s discount widens and *prices the disagreement in* before the oracle catches up. **This is the answer to the “isn’t a continuous oracle fragile?” worry** — the oracle anchors NAV, but the market is allowed to overrule it on price.

### What you lose vs the dated-option version

You give up the **prediction-market secondary that lives *between* rollover events**. The original design is a secondary (prediction like) market interspersed with occasional primary (oracle) settlement events; this design flips it: a continuous primary mark with the secondary living *on top of* it at all times.

### What you gain

- **Full exit liquidity, always.** A dated/prediction market needs market makers and has no full exit liquidity until maturity. A perpetual NAV-redeemable structure can be exited at any time (except when gated as per above)

- **Continuously priced rollover risk.** The roll cost isn’t a discrete event you eat at maturity; it’s marked continuously into the funding rate and the secondary price.

final thoughts: the dated-option version buys a **slow oracle** at the cost of the **roll**; the perpetual version buys away the **roll** at the cost of a **continuous oracle**; but a continuous oracle whose errors are softened (no liquidation cliff) and overridable (market premium/discount).

1 Like

I find the shift from debt-based positions to option-based primitives particularly interesting because it separates solvency guarantees from oracle latency requirements.

One question that came to mind while reading is whether the long-term viability of the system depends less on oracle design and more on the efficiency of the rolling mechanism itself. The proposal removes liquidation risk by construction, which is a significant improvement over CDP-based architectures, but users still need to periodically migrate between strikes to maintain exposure. In practice, this turns tracking error and execution costs into the primary challenge rather than insolvency. The post itself hints at this when discussing the possibility of losing meaningful value through repeated rebalancing and slippage.

I am also curious whether there is a natural equilibrium strike distribution that emerges in a mature market. If a large percentage of users are targeting similar index exposure, liquidity could concentrate around specific strikes and expiries, potentially making the system more efficient over time. On the other hand, fragmented liquidity across many strike levels might introduce a new source of tracking inefficiency.

Overall, the proposal feels like an attempt to transform a hard protocol-level problem (liquidations requiring real-time oracle correctness) into a softer market-structure problem (rebalancing and execution efficiency). That trade-off seems very compelling, especially for synthetic assets tied to slower-moving real-world indices where immediate liquidation mechanisms may be unnecessary.

Really like the use of options as the engine for other products. That is what is needed for options adoption.

The stable side P is basically a synthetic covered call. Nobody writes an option, but the P/N split recreates the exact payoff. P keeps value up to the strike, N takes the upside above it. That is what made it feel so familiar.

The synthetic call is an elegant design. My main concern is the market.

To stay stable, P has to be a deep in-the-money call. Mostly intrinsic value, so it is capital-heavy.

The harder question is who funds the other side. Whoever holds N ends up leveraged long ETH, and anyone who wants that can just buy a call or long a perp. Simpler, cheaper, familiar. N does have a real edge, non-liquidatable and no funding rate, but it still needs a standing supply of buyers who want it in this exact form, continuously, through every market.

Overall this could be built on Rysk infra. Fully collateralized, no liquidations, isolated positions, no counterparty risk, physically settled, and oracles used only at settlement.

Happy to explore this with anyone interested.

This is a great question to ask.

I think there are quite a few entities interested in longing ETH: funds, individual people. Some want to borrow against their existing ETH position. There is demand.

The question is more about where the elasticity comes from (in case the P demand and N demands diverge) and I think that’s pretty simple as well: funds that use worse leverage right now (margin with liquidations and dependence on instantaneous market/oracle stability) would be happy to at lest partially migrate to a better leverage model. They can be elastic about this migration: at any point, if the other side’s demand increases or decreases, they can just balance using options vs margin. They would get e.g. a 50% risk migration now, which is better than zero in status quo!

3 Likes

It certainly is needed. The problem isn’t that there has been over-engineering; that has been, but it is the same thing that has led to this blacchat first culture… People don’t do business in the hood why? It’s not worth the risk. Broken windows, crime, theft with impunity… any of these things sound familiar?
Apart from that the over-engineering isn’t just plainly that; the engineering itself has turned into the same futile exchange between Donald Trump & the reporters who celebrate Charlie Kirk’s murder & yet gasp pearl clutch reee over a UFC fighter stating the truth about Michelle Obama – they’re supposed to support men dressing as women I thought? Does crypto support derivatives? Attracting new investors? DO YOOU, VITALIK??

Can anyone tell me the difference between spot & perp? Don’t give me technicals because that’s language. That’s the changing of definitions of the same words & different words. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/cme-sue-commodities-regulator-over-perpetual-futures-ceo-duffy-tells-cnbc-2026-06-17/

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/cme-sue-commodities-regulator-over-perpetual-futures-ceo-duffy-tells-cnbc-2026-06-17/

With trillions on teh sideline every single day hampering crypto’s growth, the tendency shouldn’t be to become more like crypto than tradfi to attract those holdouts. Of course, it’s easy for me to say this, I’m not in Vitalik’s position. But he claims – HE CLAIMS TO BE FOR THE USER! For the cause… if so, how can one be for this culture?

1 Like

I think a spot exchange is one where you can only trade at market price whereas in a perp exchange you’re effectively using a limit order book, enabling you to trade at any price. Furthermore, perps are derivative products that enable leverage & short selling, something you can’t do on a typical spot exchange. Spot exchanges are also highly vulnerable to sandwich attacks, whereas perps aren’t because you define the execution price.

The real issue isn’t over-engineering by itself. It’s that the same over-engineering has produced an environment with visible disorder and extremely long updating cycles for fixing it. Broken windows stay broken because the the updates to the updates are being written before anyone enjoys the update. Rational capital looks at that and stays on the sidelines — exactly like it does anywhere else predation has low cost and weak consequences.

We can ship fancier primitives (options over constant debt/liquidation spirals) all we want. If the surrounding culture and execution layer still treat extraction as the path of least resistance, the capital that could actually scale these ideas will keep treating crypto like a high-risk, low-trust neighborhood. Greed exists everywhere. The question is which system makes it expensive to be extractive and cheap to be coherent. Currently crypto is optimized for the opposite in too many places.

1 Like