Proposal: 🌑 40% hopr/eth (uni), 20% hopr/bnb (pancake), 10% hopr/sol (raydium), 20% hopr/xdai (honey), 10% hopr/ava (pangolin)

I opened an singular discussion on Balancer hopr/dai pool because hope/dai has too much impermanent loss for my stomach (we expect HOPR to moon, right? A stablecoin/HOPR pool loses 50% of this upside in IL), and balancer pools with stronger HOPR weight seemed like one way to solve this. However, have absorbed comments and activity on other posts, proposing:

  • 50% HOPR/ETH on Uniswap (eventually to v3 with perhaps a ~2/3:1/3 narrow:wide distribution, or other following research)
  • 20% HOPR/xDAI on Honeyswap, stepped up from 10% to de-risk as recommended by @iicc
  • 20% HOPR/BNB on Pancakeswap modified from proposals by @t0b and @iicc
  • 10% HOPR/SOL on Raydium (Solana) as proposed specifically by @Judge and seconded by @misha256nya but stepped down from 20% to de-risk as recommended by @Lastfor

The alpha (growth) benefit of these is that we are fully embracing top DEXs for Binance and FTX CEX attention and goodwill (by using their native tokens which increase exposure to bull market) while providing dominant liquidity to high volume UNI and maintaining stable, cheap exchange on Honeyswap for nodes.

I’m open to discussion (should it be HOPR/SOL instead of HOPR/RAY or HOPR/BNB instead of HOPR/CAKE for instance? adopted @SpeedTickets.4Nodes solution here) For ex. Is raydium the best bridged DEX for Solana?

11 Likes

I have mixed feelings about eth. But using it as the hopr mate could reduce the number of transactions for some people which is is good that the tokens are consolidated. As a broad approch it’d be good to have the pair mate match the host chain’s token.

1 Like

I personally prefer stable pairs. In your proposal, the HOPR DAO would need to sell its DAI and buy CAKE, RAY, and ETH. I think that is too risky.

2 Likes

I agree there is more inherent risk in this approach, but I mention that is the point of this proposal: to minimize IL so we don’t have to subsidize the LP mining so much. I’m holding HOPR because I believe it has huge long term potential, as I believe the native tokens (to which I’ve changed the proposal pairs) do as well.

If we don’t believe these native tokens are stable enough to buy with HOPR DAO, why are we putting our liquidity on them? (DAI on BSC carries much of the risk of just holding BNB)

Also, if we really want to talk risk, DAI isn’t even the least risky stablecoin; it’s peg has been shocked many times and lacks regulatory/corporate synergy of USDC, for instance—but this is a different topic entirely.

Just my opinions here. I appreciate the difference of risk appetite you are presenting and don’t see an easy compromise.

Is there a % of HOPR/xDAI at which my proposal becomes risk-tolerant to you?

1 Like

Good point to include Raydium on Solana chain.
But I think it should not be over 5% from total Liq.

2 Likes

Hi @monadnoc. Thanks for the proposal. In general this is the process I was hoping for: an initial idea, some refinement through discussion, and then finally reaching a proposal.

But can you rewrite it so ONLY the proposal part is included in its own post (and then tag that using the solution button)?

I’m trying to keep the moderation process as judgment free as possible, so when a proposal is valid we’re just copy/pasting the entire post.

1 Like

We expect HOPR to moon, right? A stablecoin/HOPR pool guaranteed loses ~50% of this upside in IL

After discussion and iteration, I’m proposing the final distribution in majority HOPR/non-stablecoin pairs to minimize impermanent loss when HOPR moons:

  • 50% HOPR/ETH on Uniswap (eventually to v3 with perhaps a ~2/3:1/3 narrow:wide distribution, or other following research)
  • 20% HOPR/BNB on Pankcakeswap
  • 20% HOPR/xDAI on Honeyswap
  • 10% HOPR/SOL on Raydium (Solana)

Solana was stepped down from 20% to 10% and Honeyswap was stepped up from 10% to 20% to de-risk this proposal somewhat.

4 Likes

Fixed and marked final solution. Thanks for the clarification @thewanderingeditor

1 Like

Thanks for the update. I think we would still need some clarification on the steps for Uni v3. I don’t see any reason why it would be out of scope to have multiple liquidity contributions with different price limits, but the narrow / wide distribution would still need to be specified.

To be clear, I think it’s within scope for proposals to be contingent (e.g., do A if condition X is met; B, if condition C is met; Z otherwise) or relative (e.g., set price limits of X%/Y% above/below the price on date D) or a mixture, but I don’t think “decide later based on research” would be valid.

1 Like

Actually if you’ll add Pangolin (Avalanche) and lower UNI liquidity i’ll be voting for this with both hands. We do need Avax because of traction, volume and because it’s most decentralised L1 eth-compatible chain (not just L2 solution). Imo it should be something like 30-20-20-15-15 (Uni-Pancake-Honey-Rad-Pangolin)

2 Likes

Final proposal:

We expect HOPR to moon, right? A stablecoin/HOPR pool guaranteed loses ~50% of this upside in impermanent loss (IL).

After discussion and iteration, I’m proposing the final distribution in majority HOPR/non-stablecoin pairs to minimize IL when HOPR moons:

  • 40% HOPR/ETH on Uniswap v3 in unlimited price range
    • default fee structure 0.3%
    • follow-up proposal to create a more precise liquidity strategy for uni v3 should be revised by the DAO by end of summer 2021
  • 20% HOPR/BNB on Pankcakeswap
  • 20% HOPR/xDAI on Honeyswap
  • 10% HOPR/SOL on Raydium (Solana)
  • 10% HOPR/AVA on Pangolin (Avalanche)

Solana was stepped down from 20% to 10% and Honeyswap was stepped up from 10% to 20% to de-risk this proposal somewhat. 10% HOPR/AVA was considering high degree of decentralization and lightweight nature of Avalanche nodes; for ex. Avalanche node can be run on a HOPR Avado PC simultaneously with HOPR dApp

1 Like

I did more research on AVA, and included it in my final proposal.

Namely, I’m impressed by high degree of decentralization and lightweight nature of Avalanche nodes; for ex. Avalanche node can be run on a HOPR Avado PC simultaneously with HOPR dApp (and auxiliary USB fan)

1 Like

I rewrote the proposal – marked now as current solution – to initially deploy to unlimited price range on Uniswap v3 and expecting a separate vote for more sophisticated liquidity distribution on v3 by end of summer 2021

@thewanderingeditor I also included a 10% hopr/ava on pangolin, but can no longer seem to edit the title of this proposal thread to address this; can you edit it for me, or should I post a new thread with the 10% hopr/ava reflected in the title?

Thanks

I think also can add 20% hopr/matic,for Polygon now becoming more popular.And I remember there was a testnet phase on Matic,right?So it would be naturally.

Done. Sorry, not sure why the editing sometimes gets locked. Did you want the fee tier for Uni v3 to also be default (0.3%)? You only specified a price range.

Yes, I confirmed the default fee structure of 0.3% in the marked ‘solution’

Ah yes, sorry, I just saw the most recent reply.

New information relevant to Solana and Avalanche proposals: Thursday Morning Update: Solana, Avalanche, Polygon validity news