[This proposal is the result of the three-stage voting procedure devised and implemented by @octo44. Links to the various stages and discussions can be found in the proposal. To support this proposal, sign it using the like (heart) button below this post.]
This proposal is the product of three voting substages (explained below):
The way funds in the Uniswap DAI-HOPR pool, which were placed there by the Genesis DAO after the HOPR launch, should be distributed among decentralized exchanges (DEXs) is:
- 47.5% of the pool - to Uniswap v3 (Ethereum Mainnet) in HOPR-DAI pair;
- 30% of the pool - to PancakeSwap v2 (Binance Smart Chain) in (b)HOPR-BUSD pair;
- 22.5% of the pool - to Honeyswap (xDAI Network) in xHOPR-xDAI pair;
- For Uniswap v3 default settings are proposed: 0.3% fees and unlimited price range, but it could be changed by the team if needed.
The idea was to create a structured and hierarchical approach to choose the Proposal option supported by the majority. It had to be simple and convenient to find a solution briefly, logically and consistently.
3 substages of Discussion stage (phase) were created:
- Discussion Stage: 1st Substage (Selecting DEXs and Networks)
- Discussion Stage: 2nd Substage (Choose liquidity distribution percentage among the exchanges)
- Discussion Stage: 3rd Substage (Choose in what pairs the given liquidity will be for each pair)
Every substages included discussions, some pros and cons analysis and voting. Poll options were chosen after the analysis of other discussion topics on the HOPR forum: there were a vast majority of options, which met criteria from Topic-specific Validity Rules. People were able to analyze the data, discuss and vote for options in the poll or for their own option.
- Moving liquidity to different DEXs is preferable due to
- expanding market presence;
- increasing accessibility (low fees on non Eth-Mainnet DEXs).
- Fewer exchanges (not more than 3) is preferable due to logistic and security factors;
- One DEX for one chain is preferable due to logistic factors and that less popular DEXs don’t give any significant advantages.
- Why these particular DEXs and why this liquidity distribution percentage among the exchanges:
- Uniswap and its great predominance - leader DEX (highest volumes, visits, liquidity), logistic factors (less movements for liquidity migration, flexible system for Uni V2-V3 migration, easy to re-assess and re-assign), v3 algorithms cons, ETH 2.0 perspectives;
- PancakeSwap - 2nd leader DEX with best combinations of pros (high volumes, very popular, low fees, good for marketing); its 2nd predominance is preferable due to centralization issues of BSC, ETH 2.0 perspectives;
- Honeyswap - HOPR working network (best choice for stakers, staking marketing), acceptable volumes, low fees; its minority is preferable due to restrictions (low volume, visits and popularity, Honeyswap development issues).
- Why the given liquidity will be distributed in these particular pairs:
Uniswap: HOPR-DAI pair is preferable due to natural relationships of HOPR and xDAI on the xDAI chain; HOPR-ETH pair is less preferable due to logistic factors and due to more conservative and simple conditions for trading with stablecoin;
PancakeSwap: (b)HOPR-BUSD is preferable due to BUSD higher overall liquidity, than DAI on the chain, also stablecoin (not BNB) is more preferable due to more conservative and simple conditions for trading;
for Honeyswap: HOPR-xDAI pair seems the best choice due to natural relationships of HOPR and xDAI on the xDAI chain.
- Why these settings for or Uniswap v3: 0.3% fees is recommended by HOPR Association; unlimited price range is the deafult option for simple liquidity providing; it might make sense to provide a choice to the team in these parameters due to unpredictable factors in the future.
P.S. This proposal is similar to PROPOSAL #2:Uniswap V3 45% / PancakeSwap 30% / Honeyswap 25% , and I gave my like for this proposal. The main difference between these proposals (besides percentages) is the mechanism of creation of this proposal - hybrid of analyzing, discussion and voting. But if the author (Xionnngan) agree, our proposals could be viewed in conjunction.