BIP-39: Optimizing Liquidity: Transition to Uni V3 POL & Reducing LM Emissions: Page 2 - Botto

BIP-39: Optimizing Liquidity: Transition to Uni V3 POL & Reducing LM Emissions

dencryptus

narok the magnitude could be reduced by having proper liquidity manager on Uni V3 pools that would shift liquidity as we trend down

In my experience you would suffer the same IL, only that in several instances rather than in a single one. Unless you went back to providing liquidity to the whole curve. Giving more depth in a tighter range...Idk, it´s like giving wings to speculators. I truly hope you are 100% certain of what you are proposing here re V3.

narok Glad that you said this

Never hided it. Yeah earning is better. It´s detrimental in the sense that we receive more in $botto than the pool generates in fees. The fees is just one thing LMiners give up, together with other costs/risks they assume. Given the extremely low fees, I wonder how stable the pool and the price would have been without the LMining program.

narok You asked how I judge that we are overpaying. Simply, we are diluting our token-holders at pace of almost a 1m per year of token emissions. To me that seems like very unreasonable price to pay.

This does not answer the question. You kinda address how costly it is for you, but not the benefits (if any) that the program brought to everyone (ie a functioning and deep pool that accrued fees to everyone, without IL risk) and whether those benefits could be reached by a POL without incurring great risks (which could could eventually be more costly than the dilution you are ¨suffering¨ now). This is the conundrum I see. What I still don´t see is a clear picture of the situation going forward. I´m missing Carbono´s input on this?

I get your feeling as a non-mining Botto-holder but LMining is permissionless. It´s you who is getting diluted, not me and the rest of the miners. The pool has been working more or less fine. Anyone can enter the pool (you too), and it doesn´t cost much to do so. Whether people who are in the pool think of it as a failed investment is contingent on when and how they entered. Honestly I think I´m net positive (but not by a huge amount though) and I´m still bearing the IL risk everyday.

I do think there is something interesting in reducing emissions and analyzing the elasticity.

How about the following?

EndTime: 15/10/2024 (DD/MM/YYYY) - Respect this

6 months in advance (i.e. starting on 15/04/2024) emissions (as set up in the contract) start to decline, 20% a month (until they become 0% in Endtime). In parallel, the team, hopefully having raised funds in between, has time to set up clearly what the POL would be (I still struggle to see all the risks associated). For those 6 months we will have time to test how things go (and adjust, or even drawback if necessary) . The dilutive net effect wouldn´t be much different, we would have a "plan" ahead for everyone to adjust, and the landing would be gradual (which I always thought, it had to be). What do you think?

thomahawk69

dencryptus

LOLOLOL you are hilarious.

$$ drain means waste of money. If you don't understand what that means - I literally cannot help you. Don't bucket everyone else to your level and say it's "ambiguous" and "a false" statement.

You can interpret and nitpick anyway you like. You want to continue to argue to protect your LM tokens - you are entitled to that. And others are entitled to their opinion of wanting to wind it down because it can be put to better use.

It's hard to have a reasonable debate when you can't accept other people's opinion other than your own.

dencryptus

thomahawk69 $$ drain means waste of money. If you don't understand what that means

Issuing $botto is not a waste of money, either. I explained above in my reply to Hudsonsims what issuing $botto is, and how it affects all the parties involved. Try to contend against that (if you can).

thomahawk69 It's hard to have a reasonable debate when you can't accept other people's opinion other than your own.

This is precisely what you have been trying to conceal. Your argument is simple and can be summed up in (I´m quoting), LM is a "drain on $$" equivalent to "giving out $80k/month", and in an "inefficient use" so you would "double down and fully eliminate LM (...)". The problem is that the two first quotes are false and/or misleading (explained in the answer to Hudsonsims), the third one is an opinion (which deserves an analysis that imo you are trying to put aside) and the fourth one is a maximalist proposal (one more in the toolbox). We are lacking the real evidence and a robust solution.

thomahawk69 You want to continue to argue to protect your LM tokens

This is what´s hilarious (and false). Not only you are making interested assumption (that probably is describing your intentions more than mine), it´s also pretty clear that you popped up lately (I made calls to review this many months ago), that you are not reading this thread, and/or that you haven´t done a few basic computations. That debit, just like a few others, goes to your account, not mine.

The discussion should go about how to build a robust POL and transition to it (because we will have to), not about cutting LM asap (just because...you don´t want to suffer dilution but would rather suffer and perhaps enjoy other things?)

thomahawk69 If you don't understand what that means - I literally cannot help you

While I kindly appreciate your worry regarding what you see as an inability to understand what a "waste of money" is, let me respectfully call into question any 101 patronizing that you could eventually offer or provide, and proceed to list out why I can´t or will trust your judgement and intentions onwards. So far, at least, you could not:

Utilize the the concept of opportunity cost (so you can´t item ALL the factors involved in this BIP and provide useful arguments on the basis of it)
Help a busy team bring up the concept of dilution in a BIP (BIP-35) that was all about fundraising, and will impact Botto-holders more heavily than BIP-39
Transparently differentiate between treasury management and fundraising as two separate key functions in one of the most important BIPs we had
Advice a busy team on setting up the basic guardrails that would look good to any investor in a fundraising process (others had to)
Help this community understand and apply the principle of accounting prudence
Thus, account for price dilution when valuating all the tokens in treasury (maybe because if you tried to do so, the math would make some of your assertions fall apart)
Differentiate, at a very basic level, between an asset and a liability (could these concepts also be subjective?, it would be the summum of relativism)
Help a busy but enthusiastic community increasingly understand basic concepts of your field and build knowledge, by expressing yourself accurately and precisely

The worst part is that you can´t refute any of the above without some blushing. The evidence and your statements are out there. It´s obvious that not everyone here has a financial background and thus almost everyone deserves wide room to express themselves straightforwardly in the best way they can. You do, however; so some of your assertions come as a big surprise, and none of the reasons that I can come up with to explain why you´re doing this is very pleasing.

thomahawk69

dencryptus Issuing $botto is not a waste of money, either. I explained above in my reply to Hudsonsims what issuing $botto is, and how it affects all the parties involved. Try to contend against that (if you can).

we can agree to disagree - you think it's not - I think it is. Spending $100 vs $200 - can be both considered a waste of money if the money can be put to better use. But if you want to see it as not - that's your prerogative - but please don't try to say that your answer is the only right one. Any expense can be considered a waste of money - it's up to how the person sees it. There is not right or wrong answer, so please stop saying it's "false" and "misleading"

dencryptus This is precisely what you have been trying to conceal. Your argument is simple and can be summed up in (I´m quoting), LM is a "drain on $$" equivalent to "giving out $80k/month", and in an "inefficient use" so you would "double down and fully eliminate LM (...)". The problem is that the two first quotes are false and/or misleading (explained in the answer to Hudsonsims), the third one is an opinion (which deserves an analysis that imo you are trying to put aside) and the fourth one is a maximalist proposal (one more in the toolbox). We are lacking the real evidence and a robust solution.

you are proving my point yet again - you wont even take people's pov under consideration. Straight up just accusing ppl's statements are "false" and "misleading". I can say that the LM program is a waste of $$ and an inefficient use - because that's my opinion. It's like someone saying $100 champagne is a waste of money, but then you come in and say their statement is "false" and "misleading".

dencryptus This is what´s hilarious (and false). Not only you are making interested assumption (that probably is describing your intentions more than mine), it´s also pretty clear that you popped up lately (I made calls to review this many months ago), that you are not reading this thread, and/or that you haven´t done a few basic computations. That debit, just like a few others, goes to your account, not mine.

The discussion should go about how to build a robust POL and transition to it (because we will have to), not about cutting LM asap (just because...you don´t want to suffer dilution but would rather suffer and perhaps enjoy other things?)

LOLOL - I've made it very clear that I'd like to reduce or eliminate the LM program. I'm not shying from that fact. This all stem from the fact that some ppl don't want the DAO to OTC $BOTTO tokens - so finding another alternative led to this. I can guarantee you that the intentions of everyone in this community are not the same, but that does not make 1 person better than the other. So just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they are wrong.

dencryptus The worst part is that you can´t refute any of the above without some blushing. The evidence and your statements are out there. It´s obvious that not everyone here has a financial background and thus almost everyone deserves wide room to express themselves straightforwardly in the best way they can. You do, however; so some of your assertions come as a big surprise, and none of the reasons that I can come up with to explain why you´re doing this is very pleasing.

Good for you for thinking that you know the answer to everything, but we don't have to agree. You think you add more value than others, that's your opinion. You don't trust my judgment, that's your opinion. I can also say that I don't agree with your comments, but I can see where you are coming from - but the fact remains that you can't fathom accepting other ppl's opinions that's not aligned with yours. Re-read your comments - and I remain firm that it is impossible to have a debate or conversation with someone like yourself. And this to me is a waste and a drain of my time.

« Previous Page