1st substage voting results: A) Total number of chains (DEXs) for Uniswap DAI-HOPR pool distribution: 3; B) 3 chain(s)/DEX(s) for Uniswap DAI-HOPR pool distribution with most votes:
Uniswap v3 (Ethereum Mainnet)
Honeyswap (xDAI Network)
PancakeSwap v2 (Binance Smart Chain)
Let’s choose liquidity distribution percentage among the exchanges. Vote for the option you prefer more. If your opinion is radically different, please, give your vote for “my option is radically different” and tell about your option in the reply.
My option is radically different (write in the reply)
Voting for this substage will be open until 11:59 AM UTC on May 19. After that I will commit the results and publish them.
Some Pros and Cons:
Uniswap v3 predominance is beneficial due to logistic issues (less movements for liquidity migration, flexible system for Uni V2-V3 migration, easy to re-assess and re-assign), Uniswap pros (highest volume and visits, whales) and ETH 2.0 perspectives;
PancakeSwap v2 predominance is beneficial due to its Pros (2nd highest volume and visits, current hype);
Honeyswap minority is beneficial due to its restrictions (low volume and visits; Honeyswap development issues; this DEX is mainly for stakers and Genesis-participants);
Uniswap V3 > PancakeSwap V2 is beneficial due to centralization issues of BSC.
P.S. There is a typo in “gradual decrase” percentages: it should be 50, 30 and 20 respectively. Current voting isn’t public (you can’t see voters) - it is an accident, sorry (I noticed it too late and now can’t change it, because the votes have already been cast).
In general, my vote is for majority Uniswap and minority Honeyswap with Pancake < Uniswap for the following reasons:
Uniswap v3 is incredibly efficient if we develop a sophisticated price-liquidity distribution, we could use a fraction of the liquidity we are currently supplying on v2, but we need the extra liquidity now so that we can easily re-assess and re-assign after a more detailed voting and proposal of uniswap v3 distribution
Honeyswap must be minority – has barely any volume and xDai 1Hive DAO does not seem to be prioritizing its development or incentivizing its liquidity
Pancakeswap should NOT be == to Uniswap – BSC is highly centralized which opposes HOPR philosophically; because fees/commissions on BSC are so cheap, at 25% or less total allocation, anyone looking to do enormous trades (16,000 HOPR in a single trade – the max individual purchase in genesis DAO btw) that might incur any significant slippage at this level could inarguably afford to split these trades into several smaller trades with essentially no overhead from fees
First I wanted to add Quickswap, but then I found out it’s 24H trading volume on Coingecko doesn’t meet the criterion: Topic-specific Validity Rules says “ Funds can only be redistributed to decentralized exchanges which are listed on Coingecko with an average 24h trade volume of at least $1m as of May 5th. ”
At the 1st stage majority of voters voted for these 3 DEXs, so I moved they to this substage.
I choose Hopr and believe it, cause this project produce service not only for different cryptoprojects. Hopr is project for people and organizations from non-crypto wold also.
And I suppose, that this case will made HOPR stable and not infuenced from different crypto rates.
I suppose, we should understand what currency will pay our consumers, and how does this currency will become HOPR to incentivize HOPR’s nodes.
I think, that then much real money (fiat) will get HOPR, then quickly will grow capitalization.
And we will decide to have dividends or high token price.
In this case, I think, that we should think about availability of HOPR by service consumers.
I can give any usefull proposals where we should store liquidity and wich pairs trade, just after becomes clear for me who are our consumers.
If HOPR just a project for Etherium network, I think, we should stay at Eth, and spread liquidity between most popular eth DEX’s, if HOPR want’s to be a service, for example, for Solana, or Eco, or Polkadot, we should choose most popular DEX’s at that systems, where HOPR will be available for consumers, and build bridges, wich will use HOPR holders to get incentivizes and drive back, if whant to store HOPR other network.
I don’t can give exect answer on topic of discution, cause don’t have full information I mentioned above.
You can check blog and AMAs recaps - there are some answers on your questions: HOPR - is layer 0 solution for crypto and non-crypto projects. But you’re right, we haven’t got details about these applications yet. I think the team will be able to announce these details later. At this time we’re operating in short and mid-term scale, so as Sebastian said, liquidity may be migrated differently later.
I understand it, but we don’t have to make random decisions. Future costs to change such decisions if they not keep strategy aims may be much higher, and we waste a time.
I think, if HOPR team wants DAO, we need much more information about market, tech plans and so on.
It’s just my opinion, i don’t want to obstruct voting, but I am afraid that we don’t have an idea what we are talking about and can choose not wright solution (like, HOPR just a crypto for speculation: buy and sell, cheapest transaction, staking, high token price and so on, not thinking about a product/service HOPR produce).
HOPR will be alive while consumers want’s to buy it. In this case I am talking about availability. It should be a base in topic solution.
Thanks for possibility to tell my opinion :)
The set of choices presented is moot because the crypto arena can and will likely dramatically change by the time we hit the 2nd substage. We’ll be OODA-looping when we hit the next milestone to set the best thought out course of action.
In all honesty, I think Honeyswap is the most aligned from a values/philosophy perspective. As such, it would be a real shame to weight them less.
To elaborate a little, Honeyswap has been built by the 1Hive community. This community is devoting itself to building an economic engine capable of effectively and sustainably funding public goods (Honeyswap is just a part of this engine).
While 1hive is currently focused on software-based projects and online communities, the long-term hope is that the lessons learnt here will be used for any causes that belong in the public domain.
To take a concrete example, under Honeyswap, a small fraction of the fees are used to buy back Honey and to return it to common pool. This HNY can then be used to fund more public goods for the 1hive community
1Hive is an emergent, living organism much like HOPR. With a noble vision that transcends both the profit motive and the individual.
I see this as a wonderful opportunity for two mission-aligned DAOs to align themselves further. In fact, I’m optimistic it could mark the start of a long and fruitful relationship.
I don’t think Pancake predominance is beneficial, and “the current hype” is not a reason thats good enough for allocating a greater portion. We seriously don’t want to be making long term decisions based on this kind of reasons, as we have all seen today the market sentiment can change very fast and liquidity can move just as fast. As other members have pointed out, allocating a bigger portion to a centralized platform is against the community’s core philosophy/values.
Ha,all I want to say is that things go fast on cryptoworld，new power raise up day by day,We HOPRer should take advantage of this wind.We should not care the colour of cats is white or black,a cat which can catch rats is a good one.