Hi @Xionnngan. Thanks for the proposal! I’ve marked this as incomplete for now, just one small point to clear up.
When you say “In the future, when Hoprnet is fully launched, redistribute liquidity.”, can you be more specific? This is currently too general to implement on, and I’d like everything that seems like it might be an instruction to the HOPR Association to be unambiguous.
If you don’t have a specific idea here, and this was just a general sentiment, it’s also fine to just delete this sentence.
70% on Uni v3 is way too much. It is unecessary, as slippage is already great with just 20% of current LP.
5% on Honey will result in high slippage for small-to-medium-sized transaction. (HoneySwap slippage algorithm is less performant than Uni v3.) Besides, we should have more on this chain to incentivize running nodes afterwards, and support xDai Chain.
Thanks for the changes. I’m afraid since I last commented there have been some adjustments to the Uni v3 validity rules. You need to specify a fee tier and a price range (even if the fee tier is kept standard and the price range is unlimited, basically duplicating Uni v2).
For uni v3, most stablecoin pairs opt for 0.3% fees
The HOPR Association strongly recommends 0.3%
0.3% is a good choice :]
Unlimited price range (Uniswap V3)
Since the goal is to provide liquidity, not earnings, an unlimited range is needed.
Of course this duplicates V2, but it makes no sense to stay on the old version.
The new uni V3 options will work for other, smaller, liquidity providers.
Already on V3 there is enough DAI liquidity (DAI-ETH, DAI-USDC, DAI-USDT) so that DAI-HOPR can exchange well.
@thewanderingeditor The first post cannot be edited, I will create a complete Reply and mark it as “Solution”, but i will do it a little later.
Are there any more shortcomings?
On Honeyswap, the volume is not large, 25% will probably be enough.
Possibly liquidity will be added by people who are still HODL in the xDAI network.
When staking starts, bots on the xDAI and BSC networks will do arbitrage, maybe…
Distribute between the most popular networks and preferably to a stablecoin pair.
Uniswap V3 [Ethereum Network] 45% DAI-HOPR
Unlimited price range The most popular DEX on the Ethereum Network.
PancakeSwap [Binance Smart Chain] 30% HOPR-BUSD On the BSC network, users prefer BUSD, it seems more logical to provide liquidity to the BUSD pair than DAI.
Honeyswap [xDAI Chain] 25% HOPR-XDAI As long as Hoprnet is powered by xDai, it is a good idea to provide some liquidity.
Why Fess 0.3% (Uniswap V3) For Uniswap V3, most stablecoin-token pairs opt for 0.3% fees. The HOPR Association strongly recommends 0.3% 0.3% is a good choice :]
Why unlimited price range and Uniswap V3. Since the goal is to provide liquidity, not earnings, an unlimited range is needed. Of course this duplicates Uniswap V2, but it makes no sense to stay on the old version, already on V3 there is enough DAI liquidity (DAI-ETH, DAI-USDC, DAI-USDT) so that DAI-HOPR can exchange well. The new Uniswap V3 options will work for other, smaller, liquidity providers.
Why there are only 3 exchangers. Fewer networks will save time by the Hopr developer. Any other networks most likely do not have unique users that could be attracted. It is doubtful that HOPR exchange is needed on other networks right now. Users of other networks can transfer stablecoins to one of these three and buy HOPR.
Liquidity on PancakeSwap is a good idea because of the lower gas fees, the growing market and also integrating into a new chain but I think that the proposal of 30% allocation might be too much because HOPR is already on Honeyswap and Uniswap so a little more diversity won’t do us any harm.
I believe this proposal is most balanced and diversified.
Three DEXs - three stablecoins. Pairing and trading with stables is, IMO, more healthier for HOPR network stability. It would insure less volatility for HOPR token.