Guys, I’ve already heard about Arrakis, which is by far the largest LP on Uniswap v3.
It seems to me that if you trust anyone, it’s only him)
In any outcome, the team provided us with these two candidates for a reason. I think there has already been their reliability check.
I liked the ideas of distributing the amount of funds between these companies.
I would distribute it like this:
Arrakis 70%
Gamma 30%
Arrakis proposal is very interesting and well detailed. However, I would to see as many proposals as possible. The main reason is that I do not have much knowledge on that subject so it would be interesting to compare all possible alternatives.
I was looking up both Arrakis and Gamma project and found some figures that might be interesting for other participants.
Arrakis: Arrakis Finance: TVL and Stats - DefiLlama
Gamma: Gamma: TVL and Stats - DefiLlama
the security and safety of these protocols must come first
Will there be any potential issues with both these management services based in the US? Is there a potential for future US regulatory issues around crypto affecting these management services?
Hey everyone!
Thank you all for your consideration here, and I would be happy to answer the questions that came up here. Please also take a look at the proposal from Gamma Strategies in the link above!
@lau
It’s more of a service provided by us to manage concentrated liquidity on an AMM. Essentially, we work with you on specified parameters such as (1) liquidity ranges and (2) rebalance triggers and then create the automation process to do exactly that.
In terms of strategies, it’s very similar to what I mentioned in response to @lau.thomas 's question. We would manage within a certain range and when certain price targets are hit, we would rebalance to the new range.
We would then periodically run an optimizer code to configure the best ranges to use based on historical data.
In terms of risk controls: Managing liquidity solely on behalf of the DAO is much safer than managing liquidity vaults open to the public. We can assure that only the DAO has the power to deposit within to its own position manager contract. The biggest risk here is that an external party would use a flash loan to inflate the price of one of the tokens and then subsequently deposit into the vault at an increased valuation. That would entitle such actor to receive greater than his proportionate share in the vault and withdrawing could lead to a potential exploit.
To control for that, restricting the depositing of the liquidity only to the DAO prevents that from happening. Gamma has no admin function to withdraw any of the liquidity and the DAO can deposit and withdraw from the vault permissionlessly.
The only admin function that Gamma would retain is the ability to rebalance the liquidity in the new range. But the vault would be completely noncustodial in that only the DAO would be able to deposit/withdraw to and from the vault.
We’ve also had a 4-week audit from ConsenSys Diligence and a 2-week audit from Arbitrary Execution to prevent such attacks from even occurring in our publicly managed pools.
I completely understand your concerns here, and we’ve really gone the extra mile in terms of securing audits. Our latest contracts have undergone an intensive 4-week audit by ConsenSys Diligence and a 2-week audit by Arbitrary Execution (links are in the proposal). Although irrelevant to our current proposal, we’ve also had Mudit Gupta look over our staking contract.
The technical changes included implementing dual-sided deposits, TWAP checks, and re-entrancy safeguards at every corner of contracts. Happy to go over those more in detail, and we’ve also released an article here detailing much of the changes (Gamma’s v2 Smart Contract Audit Completed by ConsenSys Diligence & Arbitrary Execution | by Gamma Strategies | Gamma Strategies | Medium). Ribbon Finance, FWB DAO, and Liquity have all used our new contracts for liquidity management.
Yeah definitely agree on this! For our Optimism proposal regarding incentivizing OP-WETH liquidity, we made a joint proposal with xToken which was very favorably received given that we’d be spreading out counterparty risk, while distributing those incentives all towards the same Uni v3 pool.
My only suggestion is if we do decide to split the liquidity amongst all providers, we ensure that both providers are providing liquidity to the same exact pool so as to lower price impact the most efficient way possible.
One thing to re-iterate here is that our position management contracts are completely permissionless and unable to be frozen by a government agency. Additionally, the liquidity within them is non-custodial in that we cannot withdraw that liquidity ever. Only the LP tokenholder, which is the DAO in this case has the power to do so.
Happy to delve deeper into any of these responses! Again, thank you all so much for your engagement!
I think it would be beneficiary to hold an AMA with Arrakis and Gamma to get a better understanding of how each one can contribute to HOPR. Taking pre-questions and live questions. I think the community would have a better opinion if that took place. Was Convex Finance considered?
Fantastic idea! Would love to take part in that
Its been a long time since I’ve visited the forum so I need a recap and neither of the proposals offer a brief. Some of what I bring up may not be privy to us community members but please identify these questions which are considered holy cows.
What is Hopr’s budget to engage with these management firms?
Are both firms prices–terms the same?
Aside from price stabilization (?) and removing a burden from Hopr team, what exact potential or tangible benefits are to be produced affecting node operators and token holders?
Is any part of these processes involved with Hopr’s dodgy insurance associate, Chad Liu of Tidal Finance?
Will both pair sides of Hopr token be offered on Uniswap, Hopr Eth and xHopr Gno?
Example for question 2:
Gamma does not state upfront terms nor does Arrakis which I’ll address in their proposals.
Arrakis in Phase 3 does state later though:
Blockquote
For the services provided, Arrakis charges fees on two fronts:
Blockquote
It’s good to see that hopr is getting professional support. I will evaluate the options and choose the one that will bring the hopr to better places.
We did include that in our proposal under the section, Business Model.
We do not charge any management fees. We charge 15% on the swap fees + gas costs for deploying contracts and rebalancing the position.
boths of company are fine, 50/50
For me Arrakis looks better fo now. But i would like to see more projects. And we need choose wisely because safety first.
Can we expect more proposals to appear in the upcoming days?
GSR have expressed an interest but are waiting to see how the discussion develops. They’re a more traditional market maker though.
We had good discussions with several other projects, including Mellow and Enzyme, but they all had to pull out for various technical reasons. Some of them could potentially be solved in the medium term, others seem very unlikely (e.g., Enzyme requires a Chainlink price feed, but to get that you need $1m+ trade volume for three consecutive days).
We have an open call for more proposals, but that’s probably quite a long shot.
Great idea. I’ll look into arranging one.
Hi again! Thanks for the questions. I’ll answer them to the best of my ability in my role as neutral moderator.
Arrakis seems more established. support Arrakis
Would be good if we could schedule this in the telegram group. With each manager answering each question. Then have the whole thing written up for a medium post as it might get confusing in the telegram timeline.
