Maximum split - 20% Uni, 30% Pancake, 20% Honey, 15% Pangolin, 15% Raydium

Maximum defined is 5 Dexes, so here is my split. Please read explanation.

  1. Uni (Eth) Hopr/Dai 20%
  2. Pancake (Bsc) Hopr/Bnb 30%
  3. Honey (Xdai) Hopr/Xdai 20%
  4. Pangolin (Avalanche) Hopr/Usdt 15%
  5. Raydium (Solana) Hopr/Ray 15%


  1. Leave Uni pair as it is for Eth Maxis/Boomers/Whales or whoever uses Uni now))) Just cut the liquidity
  2. Pancake - for obvious reasons like cheap fees, high volume, numerous users and CZ attention
  3. Honey for technical reasons - as long as we stay on Xdai for nodes. As long as we run on that funny chain - (which i’m totally against, but it’s what it is) to make buying Hopr for node runners as easy as possible. Xdai now has stable coin bridge to BSC and Matic, so it won’t be hard to transfer funds in/out.
  4. Pangolin - Avalanche is getting much attention lately and volume and because it’s most decentralised L1 eth-compatible chain (not just L2). If you look at Coingecko you’ll find Pangolin is №1 in volume on Layer 1 properly decentralised protocols after Eth (Bsc and L2 not included). And №2 meeting these conditions is Raydium
  5. Raydium - next to Pangolin volume plus attention from Sam Alameda of FTX exchange


  1. Derisk - 55% of pairs are with stablecoins, 45% are not
  2. Main goal is to get attention from growing number of users in these ecosystems, so i don’t worry much about liquidity fragmentation. Since we will get attention, we will get arbitrageurs working - so don’t worry about whale moves
  3. In the future i’d suggest to turn off limit of 5 Dexes. Again - we must get maximum attention from best ecosystems. I’d suggest also adding liquidity on Maiar of Elrond, something on Matic - may be Dfyn, something on Fantom - Spooky or something, and Polkadot, Ada, Dfinity (if one of them will ever be ready, lol). And again - even if split between 10 exchanges it’s 26mil/10= 2,6 mil usd liquidity on each pair plus arbitrageurs - more than enough.

Hello Arti, you’ve put a lot of thought into this. A few questions I have about it and a personal opinion:

How’d you determine the numbers for the splitting percentiles amongst the Dexes? Are they based on: user volume, trade volume, trade value, transaction fees, stability, or an ideal?

Please explain cutting the Uniswap liquidity further, I’d like to understand why.

Having some presence on Pancake is laudable for making the token available for more users; but CZ is semantics, if you want CZ then get his users. I’d avoid throwing him business just to try for his attention. There are enough projects and rocketduds doing that.

In general, unless hopr is trying to get an organization’s business upfront, impressing CEOs and celebrities should take a backseat until we hook a target audience and cement some market share.

Regarding the first question - it’s a mix of all you’ve said. As to Uni - to me it has no point at all to keep liquidity there -no attention to project, no new users, etc, so it is just out of respect for some who still use it for reasons unknown to me.
As for other Dexes - Pancake getting 30% because its obviously №1 after ETH Dexes by users, liquidity, volume, whatever else. Honey getting 20% just because of nodes. Nothing else. I’d prefer Matic/Polygon as layer 2, but Hopr runs on xDai. Pangolin and Raydium are getting the rest split 50-50 because they are getting most volume on non L2 chains
As to other things that you mention - i don’t see it as ‘throwing business’ to someone. It’s more like common ‘scratching each others back’. You finally get to CEXes, you getting audience attentions, but you have to do something in exchange. To me semantics is trying to get a share of profile market without Cex listings. Anyway, these things going in parallel - Binance Pancake and FTX Raydium are №1 nonEth (i think №1 overall, actually) and №2 nonEth+nonL2 swaps anyway, in any metrics

1 Like

We have only ~$15mln TOTAL liquidity (included token Farm competitions!). How many is team liquiduty?

For example, if that is 10% (it is very optimistic scenario) we will get:

Uni (Eth) Hopr/Dai 20% - $300k
Pancake (Bsc) Hopr/Bnb 30% - $450k
Honey (Xdai) Hopr/Xdai 20% - $300k
Pangolin (Avalanche) Hopr/Usdt 15% - $225k
Raydium (Solana) Hopr/Ray 15% - $225k.

It is too small for normal trading.

I don’t know where are you getting your numbers from, but i think we should trust official medium article HOPR DAO Experiment 1: DEX Liquidity Distribution | by Rik Krieger | HOPR | May, 2021 | Medium

“The launch was a success, resulting in 17,955,067 DAI and 18,016,003 HOPR tokens in the Balancer pool. The Genesis DAO then transferred these funds to Uniswap, receiving 17,985,508 of UNI-V2 liquidity tokens in exchange. At the time of writing, these tokens are worth $26m, so there’s a lot at stake here”

I get this stats from

Hey svd, please use our numbers as a reference and trust the latest HOPR DAO Experiment 1: DEX Liquidity Distribution | by Rik Krieger | HOPR | May, 2021 | Medium sources.

Ok. Maybe I’m wrong. Sorry for that. But it is very interesting, that uniswap stats is different.

Strange, man. I see 16 million overall liquidity and 34 mil only in Dai pair. Uniswap, lol Uniswap Info

Ok, you are right. There is xDai pool too.

Still strange why total liquidity is less than in just 1 pair)))

Uniswap bugs :slight_smile:

Hey there I left a reply in another forum thread, I’m from 1Hive and I’m one of the members that helps out with marketing for Honeyswap. Some additional things 1Hive can provide for HOPR moving liquidity on to our DEX is some cross DAO marketing along with some farming incentives in our upcoming V3 launch. Feel free to reach out to me i will keep an eye out on your forum :)

1 Like

No worries everything is fine ;) Thats why we mentioned these numbers on our blog post so there could not be miss information from different sources. Thank you for your contribution!

Nice proposal, although i think Quickswap instead of Raydium. And keep 30% on Uni

I am perhaps misunderstanding the chart, but isn’t that liquidity figure you link to half the value of the tokens if they could all be withdrawn? i.e., a figure of 17m there means 17m on the DAI side and 17m on the HOPR side? That would explain the discrepancy.

I think we don’t need too much chains,and need more liquidity on uniswap

it seems to me that there is no need to split liquidity so much across different dex.

Why we need liquidity on uniswap? My idea is to spread awareness through this as much as possible to different communities. Everyone on Eth already knows Hopr or just don’t care. We won’t get any positive influence on project by leaving liquidity on eth and missing huge market of alternative chains.
Same reply to Segamega

Good luck