We don't need another protocol to manage liquidity

Recently, it has been revealed that FTX, one of the largest exchanges in the world, is using its user liquidity for its own benefit. this is a big scandal for a cex. In dexes, on the other hand, since we do not entrust the liquidity to anyone else, the user control is always with the user. but any hacker could exploit a vulnerability in a repository’s smart contract. It is insane to entrust the liquidity of the hopr to another protocol for less slippage. there is already a low price change of two percent at $100k. I prefer to divide the liquidity and add it to other pools and keep it under its control. Since we know that gamma has been hacked before, I don’t find it right to rely on an unfamiliar protocol.Nor do we know what the protocols will do for their own profit.They can use it for their own benefit. The liquidity of the hopr should be under his control or completely under the control of the team. Sorry for my bad English if I spelled words wrong :) Best regards


I agree we should avoid holding vast sums of treasury funds in a CEX but the point it appears we’re going for is how to best optimize the treasury and not have it stagnate while benefiting the Hopr organization and community.

What pools do you have in mind and on what trusted DEX(s)?

Agree to that! We should not keep anything on any CEX and reduce the risk like that

Definitely not on a CEX but I don’t think that was the idea. I think active management can be good thing as low as the percentage of the overall DAO is small.

You know the pnetwork incident that happened recently. In short, as a result of the triggering of the smart contract they wrote, they realized their own shortcomings and started the liquidity draining event called the white line without attack. Meanwhile, since the huobi deposit remained open, a certain group exploited it and created victimization. Here, the crime is on both sides of the discussion. an open subject. What I want to point out here is that relying on another protocol for liquidity involves risk. Other steps can be taken to use the liquidity more beneficially. For example, the liquidity of the hopr eth pool can be increased.

1 Like

Gamma honestly mentioned in the Twitter AMA that at our current situation we do not require their services realistically, but if sebastian says its to position us for the future it might be worth it to gain some experiences now

In my opinion, this is the most correct proposal for HOPR DAO v0.5. Why transfer liquidity management? What will it give concretely, without vague answers? I think that this will not bring any benefit except for worries and fears of losing liquidity. I think that we just need to increase the commission for all pairs for the exchange to 0.3% or more + split liquidity into reliable Uniswap, SushiSwap, Curve protocols. This will give opportunities for arbitration and, as a result, more commissions. To eliminate the effect of price slippage with large volumes, it is necessary to use aggregators (1 Inch, etc.). Maybe I don’t understand something, but I know for sure: Our money is truly ours as long as we have it in our pocket.


a very good idea in my opinion. you can only trust yourself. even the big players in the market actually turn out to be dummies. you can distribute liquidity across several pools yourself and you don’t need more risk


yes i know gamma said so. I think the thing that bothers Sebastian is that he is afraid that a large amount of liquidity, such as $ 7 million, will be wasted in a bear market. Since the project is already in the development phase, marketing is not considered important and hopr maintains its value thanks to its liquidity with dai. Increasing the liquidity pool of eth rather than relying on another protocol would be safer and more beneficial in the long run in these market conditions.

I agree. I think the most important for the DAO funds is safety and security, not performance. Minimizing risk with low gain is good, and keeping control as much as possible.
If we go for these protocol, I think we should only give them control 20 to 50% of our liquidity at most and still handle the rest ourselves.

This is also an idea worth considering for discussion, but I think for the protocol to really grow we also need professional management.

but a token that wants to grow must have a transaction, no matter in any market, if given to a professional manager, they can bring more profit for us to develop the project as well as other home running node

FTX did change a lot. But there was no “abort mission” from the team, which I would expect if they had any doubts.

I agree to this and would like to see how people respong to the voting.

Liquidity control protocols do not market the product. They allow you to use your liquidity efficiently. We have witnessed in the bull that too many amateur projects have made millions in the crypto market. The point I want to mention is the potential risks that these protocols can bring.

I agree to this