The base idea was and still is to KISS (Keep it Simple, Stupid).
so first I devided the liquidity in 4 equal parts - 25% Uniswap V3, 25% Sushiswap, 25% Honeyswap, 25% Pancakeswap.
then I dropped Sushiswap which I initialy added for some risk mitigation. I didn’t saw enough benefit for the effort anymore.
then I dropped Pancakeswap after a lot of thinking and research. I think that might be the point where most of you disagree. I’m aware that there are many users on Pancakeswap and Hopr is in need of more users and marketing. I just doubt more and more that Pancakeswap is the place to get it (see more about my doubts here - How to reach BSC/Pancake users?). I have to admit that I wasn’t a big fan of Pancakeswap in the first place but I tried to be open and were looking for positivity. Without sucess. I don’t like that the Info page is broken, that you need to launch some syrup pool or IFO to get on the default token list, all the scams and shitcoins, the documentation which often repeats “Update coming soon”, the UI, … let’s just say I’m still not a big fan.
I believe a working and growing Hopr network will be the best marketing (even if it needs some patience). I prefer to wait a bit and earn some Hopr by running a node with cover trafic then earning some unsustainable APYs right now in syrup pools with coins like MIX (“Mixie is a NFT which lives on Binance Smart Chain. She is the ChainGuardians superhero designed and created for PancakeSwap.”) or PMON (“Collect Ultra-Rare Digital Monsters”) in the neighboorhood. Call me arrogant but I think Hopr is better than that.
So my final proposal is:
75% Uniswap V3, DAI/HOPR (0.3% fees and unlimited price range) on mainnet (because it is #1 in terms of number of users and volume currently - source Dune Analytics and it’s a good place to keep the liquidity until another opportunity comes along, Maiar on Elrond e.g.)
25% Honeyswap, wxDAI/xHOPR (because HOPR runs on xDAI currently, fees are basically non existent, people can become node runners more easily)
Again thanks for your time reading this. I’m looking forward to see your opinion on this and the following discussion.
Yeah, sure. I’m aware. From my understanding only EVM chains are in scope right now. Here Topic-specific Validity Rules it’s said that “We don’t want to pull resources from the dev team any more than we have to.” On Telegram the team said multiple times that EVM chains are the focus right now. For example @SCBuergel wrote on the 3rd of May “Any erc20 is compatible with corresponding bridges, e.g. the xDAI HOPR token is bridged from main net Ethereum. Polkadot is not in scope right now. We’ll revisit other chains in maybe 6 months.”
It’s not really a top 4. It’s more top 2 on mainnet plus top 1 from BSC and top 1 from xDai.
Every additional DEX comes with a lot of decisions and effort - which pair, how to configure it, how to get funds there.
So 4 is already a lot in my opinion and 5 is the maximum anyway according to the rules. As the migration to Uni V3 hopefully isn’t really much effort and the way to xDai is already known I think 4 is a valid choice. Plus even parts of 25% are following the KISS principle (keep it simple, stupid).
But again, this is just my proposal. If you see problems with the DEX picks or the distribution I’m happy to know.
Check out the proposal that proposes 5 dexs, Have provided a detailed explanation on what I think. I agree the number is not a major issues and 5 seems to be more devisable that 4. Furthermore I have feeling that in the future we might end up providing liquidity in more than 5 places as the blockchain world is growing and new projects keeps on coming.
I agree increasing UNI contribution %, especially because v3 requires separate narrow- and wide-range liquidity pools. However, 50% seems excessive.
35% UNI v3 with 25% narrow range and 10% wide range would be my vote (see research.lido.fi/t/lego-lido-steth-uniswap-v3-pool/509 for an example that uses 80:20 narrow/wide allocation for a synthetic and it’s peg, so my proposal of 20:10=66:33 is meant to provide more efficiency in a volatile pair like HOPR/DAI), but thus would mean one or two of the other pools as originally proposed would be reduced.
One solution might be:
35% uni v3 on ETH mainnet
25% pancake BSC
20% honey xDAI
20% sushi or other on ETH mainnet
@t0b thoughts on increasing UNI allocation to account for more efficient liquidity spread?
Note: saying “sushi or other” because sushi does not have that significant of a lead in volume/# of traders to other exchanges. I recommend a balancer pool which allows for a more bullish balance of HOPR/DAI. I’ve written about it in more detail on a separate post suggesting 75%:25% HOPR:DAI
Secondary question to resolve “sushi or other”: can we get any of these smaller DEXs to contribute significant LP mining rewards to a HOPR pool?
Yeah, I see your point. In my opinion it’s not a trivial task to pick chains/projects which will pay out or last. It is difficult to find a good middle ground between being too conservative and being the first jumping on every hype train. In my opinion it’s a good first step from being only on mainnet to liquidity on 3 chains. The DAO decision isn’t final for all times. If it works out perfectly or not it all adjustments can be made. I see a lot of speculations (also in my proposal) - like pancake will boost the popularity, there are many users on Polygon who aren’t on xDai or BSC. That’s easily said and looks good in an argumentation. It’s harder to find solid data which backs these assumptions.
I disagree that Honey is only interesting for developers. As HOPR runs on xDAI right now it’s the closest to actually using the token in Hopr nodes. Besides gaining more popularity that’s one of the main goals in my opinion. A growing Hopr network which works and is being used should be the best marketing.