Thanks @iicc! I’ve tagged this as pending while I check if we need more information. I don’t think we will, but I know the team has been looking into the various DEXs and some of them need some surprising extra implementation info specified. I’ll update ASAP.
1 Like
division into four pools will not incur large transaction costs?
1 Like
Do you mean larger trading costs due to higher slippage? In my opinion, 20% of the current liquidity is still a lot of liquidity, fine for 99% of the users.
1 Like
This is the best distribution i’ve seen so far. id vote for this
3 Likes
I disagree with including Polygon. There would be no additional benefit to having liquidity there. I don’t think there are any users there that aren’t on ETH/BSC/xDAI already. It brings nothing to the table, and there is no easy bridge from Polygon to xDAI.
3 Likes
I also like this. My main idea behind adding 2 mainnet DEXs here http://forum.hoprnet.org/t/split-evenly-to-4-dexs-on-3-chains-uni-sushi-honey-pancake was not that people don’t know Uni. I agree that the majority does. My idea was to lower risks regarding the project or the smart contracts. Now that I think about it maybe Sushi isn’t the best choice for this line of argumentation as it is a fork of Uni.
1 Like
great proposal 
polygon is a great decision since there is great liquidity that you can pour into the project. and in addition to its low fees
1 Like
UPDATE: On further research into v3, we’ve had to add some further validity requirements. They can be found here: Uni V3 Validity requirements
@iicc This proposal has been added to the list of valid proposals, here.
If you’d like to delete or modify the proposal at any point, please announce that here in this thread.
Anyone wishing to support this proposal, please use the like (heart) function under the proposal here.
The current full list of valid proposals is here.
2 Likes
@iicc for all 4 options you say “the xyz pair”. Do I understand it correctly that all pairs already exist and you propose to add liquidity to existing pairs? I for example don’t see a HOPR-DAI pair on Pancakeswap. Did I understand you wrong or am I overlooking the pair?
1 Like
Since cryptoworld is developing fast we need to adapt quick. What i want to add is redistribute liquidity every 4 months according to volume of the dex’s.(i dont know if it’s possible tech-wise)
1 Like
I fully agree that most of the liquidity should be left on Uniswap and then migrate to V3. I can understand PancakeSwap and Polygon, but Solana also should be in this list…
I mean to add liquidity or create the pool if it has not been already created
Proposal edited after the new validity requirements:
I suggest distributing the HOPR liquidity among the top decentralized exchanges of the top four most used EVM-compatible blockchains.
I believe the majority of the liquidity should be kept in the Ethereum blockchain due to its higher user base and security. It is important to note that the current Uniswap liquidity will presumably decrease when the HOPR farm comes to an end.
This is my suggested HOPR liquidity distribution:
- Ethereum Uniswap v2 40% in the HOPR-DAI pair . After the HOPR Farm ends, move all the Uniswap liquidity to Uniswap v3 (0.3% fee tier, unlimited price range). I don’t think it makes sense to spread the liquidity between other DEXs in Ethereum like Balancer or SushiSwap because all users that trade on Ethereum know Uniswap.
- xDAI Honeyswap 20% in the HOPR-xDAI pair . Since HOPR nodes run on the xDAI chain, sounds logical to have plenty of liquidity there
- BSC Pancakeswap 20% in the HOPR-DAI pair . With its massive user base, many new people will discover HOPR. HOPR-BUSD may be an alternative but I believe there is enough DAI liquidity so HOPR DAO can avoid swapping DAI to BUSD.
- Polygon Quickswap 20% in the HOPR-DAI pair . Polygon (formerly Matic) trading volume and user activity has been surging lately, and Quickswap seems the most used DEX there.
6 Likes
Overall, the offer is good. But I don’t see a reason for such a large percentage of liquidity for honeyswap for only one node maintenance function. V3 uni will also significantly increase liquidity in a narrow price corridor and more flexibly configure the use of the service
I second this. Honeyswap + polygon + BSC should not be greater than all of the contribution to ETH mainnet
@iicc Also wondering why the point of polygon AND honeyswap AND (all ETH sidechains) would be superior to UNI + Sushi or other on mainnet? Is it only an argument of gwei? Doesn’t just one of these sidechains solve that problem entirely?
Sidechains are isolationist and short-sited IMHO with real L2s launching this summer. I strongly disagree with 60% of liquidity splitting 3 ways to sidechains.
Pancake is smart as a short term alpha for HOPR is still to play for Binance listing. xDAI is baked into launch DNA and nodes. Why polygon? It’s just flavor of the month
2 Likes
Good proposal. A technical point that may be useful for the hopr team is to plan out a loose timeframe of when the funds should be moved to minimize eth’s sky-high gas impact on the transfer, mitigating loss of resources.
1 Like
In my opinion you are totally right. But you need to understand that a lot of people dont want to spend a lot of money on commission. How much hopr tokens you can buy in simple free from gaswar day in ETH swap(comisiion=hopr tokens)? Even guys from Jungfrau decide xDai chain cause of commissions. So I think we need to move to BSC chain with lower commissions, there are pancake swap and another possibilities to pump our lovely HOPR. Also we need to keep eth for uni pools(cause a lot of liquidity there). So 60% bsc chain/40% eth. Remember that Hopr will be popular with low commissions chain, and where hype there money nowedays
1 Like
Since the HOPR DAO has a huge amount of liquidity available, I think the best option is to reach as many people as possible. The user experience in terms of gas fees is similar in these sidechains, but they have different users.
Regarding the L2 solutions launching this summer, I believe that we can’t decide on something that is not available. Maybe in 2-3 months, we can have another governance discussion when these solutions are ready.
1 Like
I fully support this proposal. Would there be the possibility to allocate liquidity to another DEX down the line?
The proposal would also benefit from specifying a way to reduce transaction costs like @SpeedTickets.4Nodes proposed. I think deciding on a gas price rather than a timeframe would be more specific and easier to implement in my opinion.
2 Likes
@danielbleyer If I could post the surprised ugly portrait sticker in here I would.
Good to see you in the forum!
-Ces
2 Likes
Yes, I believe we can have more governance discussions about this topic in the future
1 Like