Rebalancing

Resolving Demand vs. Reserve Asymmetry

Given the multichain architecture of the SherpaEarn vault, there may be circumstances where users deposit on one network and withdraw on another network. If too great of value is moved in the same direction without any counterbalanced activity from other users, then this can temporarily throw the sherpaUSD reserve out of balance on a given network. The core reason for this is there will be less sherpaUSD reserves in existence on a given network to back the shUSD on that same network.

Example Scenario

A user wants to withdraw $500,000 worth of shUSD from Arbitrum, however this network only has $25,000 in sherpaUSD reserves. In this situation users will be unable to withdraw the full amount on that network but will have several options to choose from:

1. Withdraw less shUSD on the present chain, and bridge the rest to another chain with more reserves. (e.g. withdraw only $250,000 from Base and bridge the other $250,000 worth to Ethereum and make a second withdrawal)

2. Bridge to a chain with a larger sherpaUSD balance. (bridge all $500,000 worth to Ethereum and withdraw there)

3. Wait for someone else to deposit USDC on the chain they wish to withdraw from. (New deposits of atleast $475,000 USDC need to happen)

4. Wait for the team to run a routine rebalancing procedure which resolves the asymmetric deposit/withdrawal demand. (e.g. $500,000 of sherpaUSD gets minted on Base, and $500,000 gets burned on Ethereum)

Example scenario described above

When Rebalancing Occurs

Team initiated rebalancing will only be run on an as-needed basis. This is triggered only when significant demand occurs. If immediate withdrawals are required it is best to use options 1-3 listed above instead of waiting.

Note that there will always be enough global reserves to facilitate a user's withdrawal from someplace in the distributed multichain vault system.