[TFIP-12] TrueFi Trinity: A new vision and roadmap

@kaimi id like to learn more about you, how can i find more discussions you’ve had online? Interview transcript, you tube, podcasts, LinkedIn account ?

There is not a technical reliance beyond TrueFi governance potentially playing a role. This is not different from how the existing product lines within TrueFi interact. Lines of credit, index vaults, asset vaults, and credit vaults have no interdependencies on each other. For all intents and purposes, they are each “separate protocols” controlled by one governance process.

Yes. While this is of course something we have thought about and (they can speak for themselves), I believe managers like @cicada would see this as exciting, however, we are right now focused on being simple with tfBill.

Before accepting other types of collateral like loans from managers, it would probably make sense to explore higher-yielding, defi-native assets like sDAI, but TBD.

Additionally, one could imagine managers parking idle capital into sTRI (or tfBill), lines of credit borrowing in TRI, or any number of other possibilities.

This makes a lot of sense to me and is the kind of engagement we were hoping to see on this post.

It’s an open discussion. Nothing in this proposal is binding either way.

Trinity is both enabled by and limited by TrueFi. Let me explain what I mean…

Let’s take a purely hypothetical example: Say Goldfinch, has a robust portfolio of EM credit that TrueFi is not focused on. Trinity could be positioned to work with Goldfinch on accepting some of their portfolio tokens as collateral. At the same time, Goldfinch might not feel comfortable working with a protocol that is “directly competitive” (TrueFi), and having some separation between the brands could be beneficial.

As you may see, tfBill has not grown since launch while other products like Ondo’s USDY and Mountain’s USDM have dominated the market. A large part of this is that tfBill is not structurally set up to be interoperable throughout DeFi. We have worked closely with the Adapt3r team to build a product (in Trinity / TRI) that they can get comfortable with having their asset accepted as collateral. While fees for Trinity are waived indefinitely, TrueFi’s fees on Adapt3r will eventually be reenabled and if TRI is able to grow with tfBill as its collateral, TrueFi will generate fees that way.

All fees from Trinity are redistributed to sTRI holders. This is largely due to the learnings of watching the bootstrapping of other dollar pegged assets such as GHO.

You know, it is possible to engage here without being so rude. You might have a higher rate of response if you were kinder to interact with.

Kaimi has no obligation to share anything about himself with you. He chooses to be anonymous and has that right, just as you do.


Sorry, I thought Kaimi was suggesting that there might be a technical reason why separate governance would be required. Your example is of course reasonable.

I think a phased approach here makes sense where initially Trinity governance is controlled by and value accretes to TrueFi. Most of us feel $TRU hasn’t performed as it should and this is a great opportunity to show linear growth with an excellent new offering. Once the product has demonstrated success then the community can decide if opening the door to competitors makes business sense and thus supports separate governance. TrueFi still has a ways to go in demonstrating its potential in RWAs so launching a new token at this stage risks market confusion or worse conflicting/competing objectives.


Appreciate you and the responses, but yeah, i can be a blunt ass at times :smile: I come from the school of hard knocks, so it can get the better of me at times. It mostly comes from a place of sarcasm from my end that can definitely be seen as “rudeness”. But i do use please and thank you, if that helps :thinking:

1 Like

Overall I think this is a good proposal and good utility.

I think there’s a couple of things that needs to be taken into consideration before deciding before or against a new token.

What is a desirable TVL target to hit in order for this product to generate sufficient revenue?
Now ask yourself how much liquidity that TVL target would require in swap pools

If the cost of incentivizing that amount of liquidity exceeds any reasonable runway then perhaps the DAO should look at sharing some of the risk with a venture partner.

How and what that would look like remains to be seen. Obviously would need to be structured with the benefit of the DAO in mind.


Voting is live for proposal to approve funding for Trinity audit by ChainSecurity:

→ Voting begins Saturday 12:16p UTC
→ Voting ends Tuesday 6:02a UTC


Please tweet about it

1 Like

I’m pleased to see something like this come to light. One of the most powerful aspects of DeFi is the ability to integrate products into others, offering versatility to users. Tokenized financial instruments like tfBILL must comply with regulations that make integrating into today’s permissionless systems challenging. Trinity presents a workaround to this obstacle.

I have some questions that Wallfacer could kindly answer, so let’s jump into it.

  1. How much liquidity can be put up to support the conversion of TRI to stables?
  2. To what extent would tfBILL’s minimum investment size impact arbitrage?
  3. Is there any current plan for integrating and adopting TRI?
  4. Can the source code be made public before going to any vote?

Once again, I’m excited to see more use cases for TrueFi’s investment products. Thanks, everyone, for taking the time and energy to iron this out.


My rough math here is that we could bootstrap TRI supply to $10mm by spending ~2M TRU at today’s prices to incentivize liquidity (or equivalent NewGov token if we are to pursue SubDAO path). Creating liquidity and demand for TRI will be a challenge (just as it has been for Aave and GHO for instance). I’ve put together some rough math and research together in this spreadsheet.

Trinity is a dynamic system where sTRI stakers earn yield paid by TRI minters (tfBILL lenders). Each time more TRI is minted, this provides incentive (more fees to sTRI vault) for external users to buy TRI with other stables and then stake TRI to capture yield. This is designed to help scale demand for TRI as the supply grows.

I don’t expect tfBILL minimum investment size to impact liquidity significantly. That might seem counterintuitive but as @ryan.rodenbaugh has mentioned in past RWA recaps we’ve observed that most tokenized T-bill distribution is driven by a few large buyers. We’ve designed Trinity to leverage this dynamic, where large buyers/desks use tfBILL to mint TRI and possibly make markets in TRI.

Expanding on the point above, a key next step in GTM for Trinity will be finding early partners that want to mint TRI to take levered tfBILL positions and/or to make TRI markets. Now that we’ve shared info on Trinity publicly this week, we are starting this process and looking to leverage TrueFi’s network of capital allocators and the Base ecosystem.

Yes. We will share github repo access (I’ve asked teammates to open access today). In the meantime, you can also take a look at the deployed Trinity contracts verified on OP Sepolia. Trinity is a fork of Gravita with a few differences we highlight here. Below are some of the key contracts:


This is a nice product but who owns it and how are you going to bootstrap liquidity? It may end up as another GHOst in the wind ….

What’s the GTM on the token side


The only question of mine that was not answered. Hopefully @ryan.rodenbaugh gives you the respect and answers this🤔

Please & thank you @ryan.rodenbaugh


@TylerEther Trinity github repo below:

1 Like

After some thought, I think it will be very important to establish a clear pitch on how TRI distinguishes itself from other t-BILL stable coins. There are several vying for a similar market, and to rise above the noise we will need something extra.

I do think a consistent weekly update cycle is a good start if it can be done safely. High stability is a good pitch given how quickly other leverage products have been shifting around their rates recently.

1 Like