How do we define success for this decision?

The more I think about these proposals and the pitches from both providers during the AMA (take a listen if you haven’t already, it was great), the more I’m wondering: What is the end goal here and what does success look like?

  • Are we seeking to increase the DAO treasury?
  • Are we seeking to ensure ample liquidity on the market?
  • Are we seeking to do both of these things?

At least for myself, this is something that needs to be clarified before I can confidently decide on either proposal. The answer here makes a huge difference.


@SCBuergel in the recorded discussion you’d mentioned positioning Hopr toward the future around the 1hr 8min mark. From Hopr foundation’s perspective what is the desire at this point? As it sounds like there are already some intentions related to jbradach’s post…

Thanks for initiating this thread. I have the same thought.

In the beginning, I was expecting that we can optimise the current liquidity in order to increase the trade fee earning by using their service. In other words, I was naively thinking that they can help us growing HOPR DAO treasury. However, that doesn’t seem the case here.
What they said they are bringing to us is basically:

  1. Realisation of the same level or even better liquidity with less capital so that HOPR DAO can use the remaining capital for something else.

  2. Dynamic and automated optimisation of the liquidity in a way to prevent high price impact when it gets super volatile in future,

The both proposals don’t seem to bring us considerable increase to the DAO treasury (or at least that is not the focus of them and their platform is made for).

Now as I understand more about Gamma and Arrakis, I would go for:

  • Are we seeking to do both of these things?

Namely, reducing the capital assigned to the liquidity, making it available for future HOPR DAO plan (to increase HOPR DAO treasury for example), while maintaining the good liquidity for the market and even getting ready for the coming bull market. For that purpose, both proposals seem well suited.


i agree with your opinion, what is important is our goal, how to make Hopr token easy to trade like on a decentralized exchange with the cheapest fee, how to build build it on many different chains, not just Gronis, ETH like now


Great questions @jbradach! Completely slipped my mind when reading both proposals.

Always important to have an end goal.

A roadmap that details what will come from this proposal by HOPR would definitely help support in making a decision.

1 Like

My thoughts are around gains and loses of agency …

  • free some capital for other things gives the HOPR DAO more agency
  • delegate the “liquidity management”, delegates also some agency to Gamma and/or Arrakis and reduces the agency of HOPR DAO.

I’m not sure which one is more important. Any opinions?

I agree. I think both providers and their proposals have their own pros and cons.

It’s my hope that the proposals can be revised so that the managed assets are split between both providers for a 6 month or so period. Ideally, there would be periodic reports from the providers to the DAO for accountability. After the 6 months window, the DAO would be able to objectively compare their performance and decide on how to proceed.


I have tried to read all related forum posts, although I have no precise understanding and experience regarding liquidity management. Jbradach, as I understand from the posts, both providers are willing to provide services for a certain period of time. I believe that it might be better to have agreement with reasonable pre-determined period and making an observation on possible outputs then taking action for the next steps accordingly. However, the main questions are what will be our expectations from aforesaid service? and What will Hopr’s gains/benefits? How will it serve for the future roadmaps that will be announced? I evaluate that these questions still have no precise and clear answers.

1 Like

Both are important as well. DAO treasury is a little less important than stable liquidity provider. Great to see that both candidates proposed here have different approach so DAO will vote and choose/balance funds depends on community demand.

We need to define and measure what we expect as an outcome.
IMO, liquidity should be widely accesible and there must be a growing volume of trading. Any other ideas?

After mulling over this question for a bit I’d say we’re doing both PLUS ensuring that Hopr’s liquidity is stable enough to stay attractive on Uniswap so that people want to use the DAO’s trade parameters for the Ethereum chain pairs, in order for Hopr DAO to avoid aggressive migration to other markets where Hopr DAO does not receive an interest in activity.

We want to increase the treasury, have ample liquidity, meet market demand for low slippage, and overall maximize efficiency to outcompete non Hopr endorsed Ethereum dex/defi protocols for the time being.

1 Like

thank you for this post

Hi, I think we are all in this for both the Tech and as a longer term investment that we hope to see some large gains on our investment. There is a concept called “the value of time” and it is used to value stocks and the discounted price of a stock your willing to pay due to the time it is perceived to gain a return on your initial investment. Sorry if I am speaking to the already initiated!

So with regards to this discussion, we definitely need to increase liquidity in the market place so newbies can invest in the token without the ability to cause price spikes and dips. I think there should be a way also increase the DAO liquidity maybe with receiving a percentage of any trading fees. That way we get the best of both worlds and the DAO will move to a stronger position. Maybe a small percentage of cover traffic fees could go to the DAO just a thought.

1 Like

I support, there is no need for us to transfer liquidity to management.

As far as I understand, the goal is to let the hopr team focus on development rather than liquidity management.
Setting liquidity effectively on univ3 is complex, especially when you want to do it dynamically depending on market conditions, etc. It makes sense to automate it.
I think the way to choose the liquidity manager should be first and foremost the safety of fund.
Using one of these solutions means trusting smart contracts and therefore means being subject to another layer of smart contracts risk.
#1 success metric is fund safety.
After that, I suppose the #2 success metric is ample liquidity with less slippage, and finally the #3 is to increase the DAO revenue.

1 Like

I dont know how much it burdened the developers to distribute liquidity, but if time is freed up, then its good.

But i still dont understand the risks, do we get full control over part of the liquidity?

To clarify, this isn’t really about freeing up time for the HOPR team directly. Since these are the DAO funds, the HOPR team has no involvement in the current liquidity management, other than a small amount of admin work when implementing DAO decisions.

What’s more of an issue is that the current DAO setup is rather immature and our DAO process isn’t very fast or dynamic. It’s also strictly bounded within the confines of these experiments that we run. This limits the number of decisions which can be made, especially reactive ones.

Coupled with that, it really does seem like the liquidity the DAO has isn’t employed efficiently. How much that matters, and whether that offsets delegation risk, is for the DAO to decide. But there is an ongoing cost there.

Since we don’t currently have the scope to change the DAO processes dramatically (that really WOULD impact HOPR team resources), the only way to achieve more efficient and dynamic treasury management for the DAO is to delegate control externally.


As far as I understand, we can withdraw and deposit as we wish and we own the contract, we don’t use public contract.
At least for Gamma

Great questions.

I think the simpler the metrics the easier they are to measure, the more it can be apples to apples. With that said I think it could be broken down 3 ways:

-Trading Volume delta from inception to x point we decide

  • I think a stated goal has been to spark more interest in the project and hopefully help facilitate more volume by way of minimal price impact

-Net fees accrued

  • (Fees accrued in Uniswap pool less fees paid to protocol)

-“(un)Pleasant Surprises”

  • Leave the last open ended (what were unforeseen pros and cons)