There is always a possibility that the strategy initially deployed is less optimal. This is why we will constantly monitor the executions and optimizing the strategy on the go whenever necessary, in consultation with HOPR. Because the behavior of the strategy are dictated by several key parameters, all we need to do is to tune the values for them.
If I have to only pick one thing, then it would be whatever objective HOPR has for its liquidity, our strategy is able to achieve it regardless of the market condition. As to the assurance, I think always having the option to adjust the strategy on the go as circumstances change can be seen as one.
Hi @barbarossa_Arrakis Thank you so much for your replies and explaining how Arrakis PALM functions.
There is a discussion for accepting the two proposals first for limited period of time as a sort of trial
I’m wondering how this sounds for Arrakis, and your thought on this idea.
Furthermore, as you charge annually 1% of AUM, we are wondering how it is going to be if the period is shorter than a year. Do you calculate it on pro-rata basis?
Regarding the plan laid out in this discussion you quoted, I personally find it mostly reasonable. Although, 3 months imo is rather short for testing out strategies that are geared towards long term liquidity management. Long enough time is needed so that the strategies can experience various market conditions and iterate accordingly. Even in a backtesting environment, results from 3 months are never considered definitive. I’d say at least 6 months is needed, and along the way HOPR can progressively add or remove liquidity based on your own judgement. Our launch partner program is for 1 year term. On one hand, we think it’s just enough to reflect the true performance of the strategy without bias over market conditions, on the other hand, it’s the same term we have with other launch partners that we have to abide.
I think there’s concern in being one of the first to try something. What are the details in testing in the wild? What are the differences and reason for going to v2?
I support the offer! This collaboration will be interesting. The proportions are normal, maybe add a little to the HOPR / WETH pair. I hope this will have a fruitful effect on the liquidity and the future of HOPR!
Absolutely. It’s just a matter of less than an hour to deploy on an EVM compatible network. If HOPR community wants it, we follow.
Although, my advise is to prioritize where the volume is.
I agree that we should focus on ETH network. Current situation with liquidity in Gnosis chain seems to be fine for small transactions (restake, cashout staking rewards, etc).
Also it would be hard for DAO to execute such desition to transfer some liquidity into Gnosis chain.
