Ethereum has the largest (and most expensive) follower base, our task is to drag some of it to HOPR. Next, I suggested an option on how to do this.
40% HOPR-DAI: keep existing pair on Uniswap v2. After the completion of HOPR Farm, many will want to lock in profits in ETH or DAI, so sufficient liquidity is needed.
30% HOPR-DAI: Provide liquidity on SushiSwap as SushiSwap is the second largest DEX by volume. Also, the exchange aggregator (DEX) - 1inch, will allow users to find the most efficient exchange routes and the best swap price. In our case, 1inch will serve as a “marketing function”.
30% BNT-HOPR: Why Bancor? Firstly, it is an old, time-tested exchanger. Second, by providing liquidity to the BNT-HOPR pair, it is possible to create a self-managed pool for tokens on the platform. Thus, we find a use for the HOPR token.
Thanks for attention!!!
I’m not a techie, maybe was wrong somewhere
I am also not happy with expensive transactions. But DEXs are not a trading history, they are blind trading, there is not even an order book, no orders are visible. To send funds to the sidechain, you need to pay a commission in ETH. To withdraw from the chain, you need to pay again with ETH. SushiSwap has a Polygon (Matic), but this is not needed now. Most HOPR wallets are an average deposit (these are just holders), and for whales, the amount of commissions is insignificant.
Hello. I have read a lot of posts that the community has to offer, and I can say for sure that the transition to Uni v3 is inevitable. Therefore, I suggest that after the farm is over, transfer 40% of liquidity to Uni v3
There’s more details in the link (Uni V3 Validity requirements), but briefly, Uni v3 requires you to set the fees your liquidity will generate from swaps (0.1%, 0.3%, 1%) and also a price range over which the liquidity will apply. A narrow price range earns you more fees than people who set their liquidity at a wider price range, but if the price ever falls outside that range, all your liquidity will then be in whichever coin is the least valuable.
E.g., for the HOPR-DAI pair, price range $0.30-$1, if the price was ever $0.25 (and you cashed in the liquidity) it would all be in HOPR. If the price was at $1.25 it would all be in DAI. This makes for much more efficient pools, but introduces a potentially extreme version of impermanent loss.
As far as I know now, in Uni V2, the percentage of DAI is 0.3%, but in Uni V3 this has been improved and also changed the liquidity pools themselves. That is, with a total USDT / DAI pool of 100,000, with an exchange of 50,000 DAI, the slippage percentage remains minimal. I suggest leaving 0.3%. The price range does it depend on the trades, or am I wrong?
The price range is kind of complicated. I would recommend only specifying if you have a clear idea of what it should be (almost certainly relative to price at deployment).
If you’re not sure, you can specify an unlimited range, which isn’t technically possible, but what will happen is the HOPR Association will decide on a very wide, very conservative range after checking further with the community. Most people have done this, but we just want to give people the option to do something different, as the general goal is for the team to shape the decision as little as possible.
In one of his interviews, Steve Jobs said that the community needs a choice from the rules that Apple has set, otherwise we will fail. In our case, the HOPR team (this is Steve) proposes the rules, and we can agree with them or not. I am not an expert in the field of data security, and even more so in money management (I also do not believe that anyone from the community gives a full account of their proposals), the last word should belong to the HOPR team