Can we divide the proposal into several more stages?
Not require the participant to submit simultaneously, DEX, percentages, pairs and weights.
Divide into stages:
- Select exchanges and networks;
- Choose in what percentage the liquidity will be distributed among the exchanges.
- Choose in what pairs and weights the given liquidity will be for each pair.
We are now at the beginning of the discussion and for each of the above three stages we can allocate 2 days.
For the first stage, create a topic “Select DEX exchange and networks.”
Assign topic moderators who will collect various DEXs in the main post, possibly with a brief description of the pros and cons that users will offer.
It looks like the main list now:
- Uniswap (Ethereum Network);
- SushiSwap (Ethereum Network);
- Honeyswap (xDAI Network);
- PancakeSwap (Binance Smart Chain);
- QuickSwap (Polygon Network);
- Raydium (Solana Network);
- Pangolin (Avalanche Network).
In the responses, users will write options to which exchanges they want to transfer, for example, there may be options:
- Uniswap, PancakeSwap;
- Uniswap, Honeyswap, PancakeSwap;
- Uniswap, Honeyswap, PancakeSwap, QuickSwap, Raydium;
Users can vote on options by liking responses.
So, counting the likes, we can select 3 sentences.
In the next topic, offer a percentage of liquidity for exchanges in the options proposed earlier, it is possible to choose 2-3 options for three offers in the first topic.
- Uniswap 50%, PancakeSwap 50%;
- Uniswap 80%, PancakeSwap 20%;
- Uniswap 33%, Honeyswap 11%, PancakeSwap 33%, QuickSwap 11%, Raydium 11%;
In the last topic, choose in which pairs and with what weights the liquidity should be.
Uniswap / PancakeSwap / Honeyswap
I like this. A lot of proposals seem to be the same and only differences they offer are the percentages. These phases would definitely clean it all up.
This is getting into meta-discussion territory, so might end up being moved to a different part of the forum, but I’ll leave it here for now, for visibility.
I’m not inclined to change the official process, but there’s nothing to stop participants organizing an incremental approach such as this if you want.
There’s no rush to create proposals. We have a full week earmarked for discussion, and the incentive system prioritizes quality over quantity or speed.
It would be great if you added Pangolin (Avalanche Network) to this list.
Uniswap / PancakeSwap / Raydium (Solana) / QuickSwap (Polygon)
The first and second are the basis.
The third and fourth are the fastest growing networks.
Need to move to V3 first and then I would go for 1inch
May I remind you that HOPR runs on xDAI? The ultimate goal is to run node, we need to incentivize people to go there and run node, so we need liquidity on xDAI.
Besides @luigy from HoneySwap said in another thread that they are preparing pools and farms!
A great advantage of xDAI over any other chain is that the DAIUSD pair is… stable. So we will not see crazy gas fee even if xDAI side-chain is more used. ETH recent high gas fee is mainly due to the increase in ETHUSD pair…
I think the liquidity must be at least in Ethereum, BSC, and XDAI for obvious reasons. I believe we have enough liquidity to have another extra exchange, like Quickswap, Raydium, or Pangolin. I wouldn’t add a 5th exchange since it fractionates the liquidity too much.
Thanks you, for trying to bring some order into the chaos.
But the problem is, that there is a reward involved, and most want a piece of it.
Therefore, it’s pretty much the wild wild west.
For me, reward was a bad idea.
Or at least announcing it in advance.
Just let the discussion happen, and present the rewards afterwards.
This is nice idea in my opinion, i though about this too.
What we have now is just a lot of topics with messy and even obvious info. It seems disorganized.
Hey. Thanks for the input. I agree things are a little chaotic, partly because this is the first experiment, partly because the forum UI isn’t ideal (but we didn’t want to build something from scratch when we expect the processes to change each time) and partly because of the rewards.
For now, we’re trying to prioritize getting good information on what works and what doesn’t, even if that means trying out stuff we think is suboptimal. For what it’s worth, I share your intuition that rewards aren’t a good idea, but it’s just a hunch, and I want to run this at least once with incentives to find out some stuff.
We’re still only two days into a planned week of discussion, so I’m happy to let things run as they are for a while. If it looks like we’re getting stuck or going round in circles, I might try to shepherd things into some more structure mid-week.
Obviously the ultimate goal is to build something self-running and self-sustaining, so even in these early stages I’d like to try to keep direct influence from the HOPR Association out of it as much as possible.
Very happy to keep discussing procedural suggestions though.