Liquidity is very poor now, we need to make markets, we need exchange robots, and we need to increase liquidity
3 Likes
No sure what brings you to this conclusion. Liquidity on uniswap and swapr is good and not bad on the few supported CEXs.
If you mean on unsupported exchanges, I would strongly disagree.
2 Likes
Do you perhaps mean volume? As @MonkeyTennis says, liquidity is really quite high, on both mainnet and Gnosis chain (you can see the mainnet stats in this post: Some Important Context
In fact, both teams on our Twitter Space yesterday suggested the issue could be that the DAO has too MUCH liquidity, and that deploying less liquidity more efficiently could achieve the same results.
But it’s true that volume is low, market making and bots could increase that, and maybe it’s worth the community discussing whether that’s something worth trying to boost.
1 Like
For me personally, market maker volume is of little value to us as it tends to just go back and forth giving the impression of volume without representing real trading. A quality project with a long term vision doesn’t need potemkin volume. Crappy projects do this because they need hype because they lack substance.
Part of the reason our volume is low is that the community are hodling/staking rather than trading.
All of you are right, but a situation often arises so that new users pay attention to the project, they just need these volumes that robots create. Perhaps this is just what is required at the initial stage of the development of the project, since unfortunately so far most people in the crypt are not technically literate enough. Good volumes will allow these people to look at the project and will arouse their interest. At the same time, if the project can offer an interesting and necessary product for new users, the project will have new followers, fans of the projects, who will spread the news to the masses.
I would disagree.
Feeling quite happy with current situation with liquidity that DAO has chosen
If I need small swaps → I use gnosis
For big transactions → Bridge DAI/xDAI → uniswap has amazing liquidity size compating to another small capped projects
We even got coinbase now!
It’s great that we have good liquidity on decentralized platforms, as well as on coinbase. But we must not forget that often new users begin their acquaintance with centralized applications (exchanges) in view of the friendly interface. At the same time, coinbase is not available in my region, and this is a fairly large number of people. Also, the centralized exchange AscendEX has very big liquidity problems in the HOPR/USDT pair. Now, especially based on recent events, we all already understand what risks centralized exchanges bear for users. But at the same time, they allow more people to learn about the project, and then these people can successfully move from the world of centralization to the world of decentralization. In my case it was exactly like that.
1 Like
Liquidity I’d say is poor on the xDai chain, where node operators will want to buy in and cash out. But unfortunately we’re married to Uniswap currently with DAO v0.5 it looks like.
Exchange robots are artificial and only benefit the exchanges while not bringing in actual liquidity. Have a look at Ascendex and their 2% up and down costs and you’ll see its a farce for trade volume. Personally, I make a point to actually avoid exchanges that instigate that activity except for arbitrage.
let’s run up the xdai chain! We can do it!!
You are right that Exchange robots mainly benefit the exchanges, but as ms_go wrote above, new users often begin to get acquainted with the project from CEX and if there are large volumes there, they consider the project more attractive.
I’d vote NO to this proposal
I would add to this sentence like this:
“The project needs a market maker or a good marketing company” Ideally, both are needed!
A project without users = a project no one needs. Such is the reality. Hence this proposal. Think about it.