I do not agree. Now we can make a good choice. We can see how they work from the protocols they have worked with in the past, and they will not act together in any way. Waste of time.
Awesome idea!
great idea, I am onboard with this proposal
very good
Hi @satopin I’m afraid I don’t know of any good analytics tools for Uniswap, although that doesn’t mean such things don’t exist. I agree that Uniswap Info is kind of opaque, although in the case of HOPR I think it’s safe to assume that 95+% of liquidity is provided by the DAO and the rest is negligible.
1 Like
I like the proposal, but KPIs must also be discussed and set in advance
I agree and mentioned in another post, a total loss because of failure of a single external entity would be devastating.
1 Like
I did a 2nd proposal with 50/50 between the two external managers:
1 Like
i also support this proposal, 2 providers will create healthy competition, even add more safety and liquidity to Hopr token
Definitely a solid idea. Especially treading lightly with who we entrust our assets with. For those that have been with HOPR for some time would remember how well the team on their own handled the crash at the start of the year. Without breaking a sweat, Sebastian was confident HOPRs value would not be effected.
Both proposed teams have solid backgrounds and TVL. Important we all ask as many questions as possible before voting.
Hi @thewanderingeditor It’s a little off topic but is there any specific reason why the 0.01% pool was chosen for ETH/HOPR pair instead of the 0.3% like Gamma suggests?
good idea
I like the idea a lot and Brian @ Gamma has come back from reading the various Proposals and also thinks this is a good idea.
One thing I think is still up in the air is the amount each proposal should be given to invest. There are rules in vesting as has been mentioned above in the discussion about “How much are we willing to LOOSE” as that has to be the mindset which the collapse of FTX has made abundantly clear.
There are clear rules and probabilities, with a maximum of 20-25% of your portfolio being put into one entity. When looking at probabilities when investing in stocks / crypto an 8% investment of your portfolio is actually the safest method and gets the best results.
So the question is how much do we give each proposal? I like the idea that they both have an equal amount of funds so it is easier to compare the effects and costs for each of the two entities. Also i think this needs to be a minimum of 6 months to allow them the chance to invest in the DAO and show us what they can do.
One thing that isn’t sitting comfortably with me is that Arrakis wants all the pie even if they accept a dual experiment. If their not willing to reduce this fee then maybe they aren’t the best external solution to use in either case and don’t have the DAO’s best intentions in mind.
3 Likes
How about 20-20 between them and Hopr DAO holds 60%, then when the term completes there is a 1 week period for Gamma And Arrakis to prepare and submit a final report followed by 1 week for the DAO to review the report?
1 Like
Good 
I am flexible in terms of length of trial, if this proposal makes it to a vote, it should be offered with multiple lengths and %'s of our liquidity.
In terms of the two different fee structures, i think this is fine, because we could subtract their fees from their balances to obtain the final results.
I completely agree with 3 months trial period
It is possible to consider an option in which a preliminary assessment of the effectiveness of the selected proposals takes place after 3 months and, if necessary, the extension of this experiment to 6 months. At the same time, after 3 months, some corrective actions can be taken, up to the termination of this experiment.
Very interesting suggestion!!
I am in for this proposal.