This platform will be used to share governance-related ideas and proposals to collectively improve the Switcheo TradeHub protocol.
Categories
-
About Governance
Informative and detailed overview on Switcheo TradeHub's governance and how to participate.
-
Ideas
For discussion on innovative ideas and initiatives that you wish to bring to life on Switcheo TradeHub.
-
Community Developers
Developer discussion and proposals / progress reports for the Switcheo Development Fund (SDF).
-
Staking Economics
An open and collaborative space for the community to discuss matters relating to Switcheo TradeHub's staking economics.
-
D
Tradehub already saw a number of pool weight adjustments. Each time some liquidity providers are gettting stuck with a pool with a decreased or even gone incentive. This may lead the liquidity provider to leave the project. I want to start a discussion about ending the commitment duration if a pool reward decreases. This would allow all participants which are negative effected to move their funds early and start commiting to a different pool.
In my opinion only if the relative weight decreases and result in a negative way for the liquidity provide the commitment duration should be ending earlier.
First of all that would require an software update and the commitment of the switcheo team to implement.
To make this happen @ravenxce or someone else should respond if this is technically possible and if the switcheo team can implement the change. This is essential to the discussion. -
S
Hi Devil and others! Great job, and very good that you started this threat. Already a lot is said about the weight, and the efficiency. I focussed my feedback on other aspects. In my opinion, the success of this proposal is not only in adjusting weights, and creating other pools. It’s depends on the ability to close new (strategic) partnerships. And also in the follow up. What triggers me is that we are talking about ‘partnerships’. Besides Locklet we don’t have any, yet. In my opinion this proposal is very much needed, to be able to successful work towards these partnerships.
Quite some text, excuse me in advance, English is not my native language. I’ll follow your 3 sub-proposals first.
Extension of the Liquidity Provider rewards: It’s a yes for me. Personally I think the percentages could be a bit higher, regarding the upcoming 100-listings and the need to provide a decent bootstrap. On the other hand, more than 30% would lead to new discussions. Let’s keep the max on 30%. New Partnerships Boost: It’s a yes for me. The main goal of liquidity pools is to create volume. Volume leads to fees, fees lead to rewards (value) for swth-stakers. It also leads to fair changes that your sell/buy order gets filled (small slippage), so it makes Demex function as it should. So, all good. The proposal fits the purpose. See below more feedback, also on the bullet “Telegram + Twitter promotion". Pool weight adjustment: It’s a yes for me as it is presented at this moment. We need to keep the discussion live and open during the next months.Besides this feedback…
Getting to more volume
Only full juicy ordersbooks is not enough to generate volume. We need (automated) Market Makers: meaning (new) active traders and/or arbitrage bots. Attracting new traders is something I guess we don’t need to discuss in this thread (chicken-egg). What I’d like to address is better organizing (automated)MM, more specific arbitrage bots, to serve Demex. There are currently not much people running arbitrage bots. And I guess the bot with the lowest profit-% will take all the opportunities. I assume the profit-% is small, but with future expected high(er) volume over a longer period of time, it will be significant. I would like to see the a-bot profits to further strengthen the value proposition of Demex. Mabey this is very easy, if an a-bot would run with, for example, a 95% chance on an average of 0% profit, and would therefor only run to create volume. Or mabey it takes more, like adding a-bots whose profits flow into liquidity pools, or are used to buy and burn SWTH/other LP-token.Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees.Getting to (strategic) partnerships
Besides the suggested basics numbers for liquidity we need to think about: 1) how do we even get to new partnership and 2) after closing a partnership, how do we keep momentum high and the buzz going. You could call it marketing/promotion for Demex, for Switcheo, and for the Partner. I cant help myself to spit out some thoughts, because I think we need to put thoughts on this matter at this point aswell. This proposal serves future partnerships.How do we get to new partnerships:
I think we need to have a good proposition to get partners involved and we really have to sharpen this item. I guess we all do. So, why would partners get involved with us, in stead of competitors? I think the main benefits for them should be financial and exposure (to satisfy their token holders), ideal also collaboration in knowledge development, knowledge exchange, product development and integrating partners services. Okay, so how? How do we get to partnerships? Not limiting myself with technical aspects, some suggestions:Assumption: the client to close a partnership with is a professional organisation/businesspartner.
We could work with a referral code for new partners, so they are more likely to get their community members to open Demex-accounts, deposit and do trades (partner gets % of the fee during the first x-period or time). I hope we can increase the min. required liquidity, but on the other hand, Demex doesn’t have the position (yet) to set a very high min. rate. For smaller businesses the min. liquidity is likely to be to difficult (see the feedback of Coco/Locklet). In order to get new partners on board, we could offer partnership-packages. Basic, Regular, Extra. Variation in especially min. Liquidity and mabey also duration/time and joint-exposure. Especially for smaller businesses, we counter-offer exposure and availability (see below). We should at all times prevent the image “we have to pay for a partnership”, so clearly point out the mutual benefits. Is there room to think about a business/commercial account manager, or sales person, assigned by Switcheo? Working on a reward base? Or is this something community-members should do (regarding decentralisation)? Rewards could be paid from the SDF. We can assume our competition will react, mabey copy and improve our approach. Def. need more thoughts about long-term relations and binding our partners...Make other communities aks for a Demex partnership/collaboration
Again: referrals. Use a % of the tradingfees to buy the partners token (increase demand). What to do with these tokens after required needs more thought (put into LP, lock, burn,…). Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees. The current pro's of Demex (low fees, dex, complex orders, no kyc, orderbooks, no deposit/withdraw limits, etc). Current business associates can provide valuable input...
It would be great to get communities of other businesses/projects to start organizing a partnership (Demex-listing and liquidity-pooling) themselves. It fits the decentralized vision. Or at least to get them asking, or even begging
, the teams/projects they support to start getting them listed on Demex. Their community members are suddenly turned into our salespersons, and do our aquisition. It would be great to find some sort of financial benefit to incentify community members to do so. Some ideas:“Telegram + Twitter promotion":
Yes, we/team can and should offer to work (together) on joint exposure. Basic: reviews about our partner and the type of collaboration, and the channels we use (twitter/medium/reddit/etc.).We provide the new partner and the partnership with regular joint-exposure, and how it benefits both parties (and therefor also swth-holders). We could also offer 'Ask Me Anything' sessions, and so on. These reviews can be written by Switcheo Labs, a 3th party, or by a community member. We can even ask community members to make NFT's (like the swth-comic). Thought: we can pay people 50% with the partners-tokens and 50% in SWTH (from the Switheo Development Fund). And yes, our partner needs to do promotion with the same intensity and goal.Last item...
Out of the box: for each trade made, a % of the fee goes to a Liquidity Pool Bootstrap Fund. This bootstrap fund invests in Liquidity Pools. This fund grows over time. How and what to do with it needs more thinking. Seems a small amount at this time, can be significant when volume really picks up. This needs math.Take into account a min. amount to perform an action due to the requirement of fees.Thanks everyone for taking the time to read all of the above. I know, not everyting is related to the original threat by Devil. But his threat led to the thoughts above, so somehow it's all related. At least I'd like to think...
-
D
@ravenxce @nwo @PlanD @CoolCash @Coco87 @acidbird
Thanks to @intsol we were able to reproduce the exact amount of liquidity at any time in the past. I changed the Volume/Liquidity ratio to Total AMM Volume / Total AMM Liquidty indicating how much volume the AMM produced at the total liquidity available over the time.
I also added new tables and diagrams. The linked spreadsheet contains way more information. Due to the fact that the post is already extremly long I just reference the sheet.
@ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:
My main concern would be with the swth_usdc pool - this pool is actually currently 80% USDC. At current SWTH prices, awarding 16 points to it is basically a super high USD yield farm. The volume/liquidity ratio is also quite low as compared to swth_busd. Seems to suggest liquidity is wasted. I suggest we could either: a) create a new 50-50 pool and reward that, or b) drop the weightage for that pool such that the resultant APR will be closer to stablecoin pools.
Yes definitly. We should create a new pool and link it to the market asap. Question: Is the protocol able to handle two pools linked to the same market, this would allow us to make a clean transfer.
@ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:
There are multiple NEO pools being rewarded. When the protocol supports Neo3, what is the plan here? I think we should decide now if we are going to a) move rewards, b) split rewards, or c) treat Neo3 pools as new additional pools with rewards to be reconsidered.
As soon as Tradehub supports N3 and most other exchanges start using N3 we should change all Neo pools to N3 pools and drop the old one. As far as I know the NEO team tries to motivate all users to shift to N3.
@ravenxce said in [TIP-16] Extension of LP Rewards & Updating of Pool Weights:
I think we can give more weight to the partnership idea, it is worth a shot to get more users on the protocol. Not a big concern though, as we can also just increase it later by not restricting to 5 points (so total > 100) if it works well.
I added the a ARB table for pool weights + provided liquidity. Locklet (@Coco87 + @seraph_staking ) already showed their intrest in providing atleast 100k. Lets see and try out I would say.
And sorry for the many changes and tagging. But collection and processing that much of data (few gigabytes of data) took a lot of time + effort. I had to develop few helping tools
