PROPOSAL (confirmed by voting): Uniswap v3 - 50%, PancakeSwap v2 - 30%, Honeyswap - 20%

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:

  1. Discussion Stage: 1st Substage (Selecting DEXs and Networks)
  2. Discussion Stage: 2nd Substage (Choose liquidity distribution percentage among the exchanges)
  3. 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.

This is the final Proposal, which is the product of 3 substages mentioned above.

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:

  • 50% 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;
  • 20% 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.


  1. Moving liquidity to different DEXs is preferable due to
  • expanding market presence;
  • marketing;
  • increasing accessibility (low fees on non Eth-Mainnet DEXs).
  1. Fewer exchanges (not more than 3) is preferable due to logistic and security factors;
  2. One DEX for one chain is preferable due to logistic factors and that less popular DEXs don’t give any significant advantages.
  3. 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).
  1. 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.
  1. 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 autor (Xionnngan) agree, our proposals could be viewed in conjunction.


Thanks for organizing and overseeing this process, @octo44! The proposal has been added to the official list here: PROPOSAL #8: Uniswap v3 - 50%, PancakeSwap v2 - 30%, Honeyswap - 20% (generated through forum vote)

Anyone who would like to support this proposal, please sign it there using the like (heart) function.


With regards your question about combining the proposals.

We thought quite a lot about how how to handle very similar proposals when we were designing this experiment.

The two competing issues seemed to be:

  • What if a whole lot of very similar proposals split the vote, allowing a different proposal to win that’s much less popular than the similar proposals combined? Wouldn’t that indicate a poor outcome had been reached (obviously the community preferred the kind of proposal represented by the similar ones, they just couldn’t agree on details).

  • Is it right for the HOPR Association to be arbiters of proposal similarity?

In the end, we mostly chickened out and decided to adopt a wait and see approach.

For now I would say the options would be to: i) run both proposals simultaneously; ii) for one author to withdraw their proposal; iii) for both authors to agree on a joint proposal, which would then replace the other two.


Thank you for your reply! After your words I think as an experiment and precedent (for further DAO development) it could be interesting to see what happens if run both proposals simultaneously. But I’m going to talk about this with another autor, I’m interested in his opinion.

Considering all of the above.
I would not like to run an experiment and run 2 similar options at once in the final vote. I am afraid that similar proposals will split the vote, leading to the least supported solution wins.

I agree to the merger. Since the 5% difference matters to Honeyswap, I would suggest rebalancing the percentages to end up with:

PROPOSAL # 2 + 8: Uniswap v3 - 47.5%, PancakeSwap v2 - 30%, Honeyswap - 22.5%

Count the likes of two proposals (2 and 8), excluding duplicates.

If the community has objections or other suggestions. Please let us know.


I also agree that the HOPR Association makes a choice in favor of one, any of the proposed.


Well, I don’t mind. “PROPOSAL # 2 + 8” or “HOPR Association makes a choice in favor of one” options suit me!

Thanks! I just need to quickly look into which option makes most sense from a logistics perspective. We’ve built some automatic data queries to manage counting proposal support and also calculating the incentives, and I wouldn’t want to break any of them. But I think it should be fine to just keep both proposals live and then merge the signatures.


Personally I am happy to withdraw my proposal (34%/33%/33% same DEX) in favor of this one, as this proposal seems to seek more compromise and consensus.

Or whichever the HOPR Association prefers.

Oh, sorry, I didn’t see this. Let me look into it and get back to you.

My feeling is that your proposal for a completely even split is sufficiently different from the merged one that it represents a genuinely different choice, even though it involves the same DEXs.

Since my role is to remain neutral, I’m happy to leave it up. If you would prefer to remove yours, though, just tag me and I can take it off the list. It will still count in the incentive calculation system as a proposal that made it to the referendum stage.

I agree the proposal.

I agree