Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments



  • Reducing weight % for SWTH/ETH, SWTH/USDC, SWTH/BUSD needs to be well thought and proceeded with caution. There is Pancakeswap already offering a better APR than Demex for SWTH/BNB. Not even talking about APR % putting that lp token in Beefy, Autofarm, Swamp.

    You don't want a situation where above 3 pairs APR goes low that people start removing liquidity as soon as their 1 month lock is over. Especially it is an insult to SWTH/ETH liquidity providers which is the highest at $5.7m liquidity and only 21.39% APR as of this writing. For comparison, just staking SWTH APR on TradeHub is 34%.

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Complacency should not set in thinking that SWTH/ETH and SWTH/USDC liquidity is good right now so tinker with lowering weight %. In fact, SWTH/BUSD liquidity reduced by about 800k-1m USD recently and hence that pool APR increased providing an opportunity.



  • Yes BTCB/WBTC is a safe haven. The only use of BTCB at the moment on Demex is for users to onboard cheap BTC. Deposit BTCB with minimal network fee and sell to WBTC to invest in WBTC liquidity pools or trade WBTC pairs. But that purpose is also somehow reduced as big quantities cannot be traded closer to 1:1 as the algo does not consider stablecoin pools (BTCB/WBTC and USDC/BUSD) as unique and just treats it as any other A and B token and hence the orders placed in the order book are according to the formula instead of closer as possible to 1:1 with higher liquidity/quantity.

    So to make more use of the BTCB/WBTC liquidity pool, more BTCB pairs listing is required. Otherwise abandon this pair altogether. Abandoning makes more sense.



  • I don't see BNB/BUSD bringing any volume. Pancakeswap is already there for that. In fact for any bep20/bep20 pair listing on Demex, it is better to integrate pcs order books into Demex rather than building our own bsc pools and launching new pairs. Users will just swap on pcs or the second or third of BSC dexes instead of using Demex. As for liquidity providers for such pairs, if you don't beat or come closer to providing APR % of similar pairs on other dexes, they are not going to come to you.



  • Regarding CEL/ETH, there is no guarantee of success here. If CEL/BUSD did not work, very less chance of CEL/ETH bringing volumes unless you can offer more than 150% APR minimum on this pair. With CEL/BUSD, one side is bep20 so that removes high fees issue of deposit and withdrawal. With CEL/ETH both sides are erc20 and there is a high fees issue of deposit and withdrawal because of Ethereum network.

    Let me tell you why CEL/ETH worked and did good volumes on Switcheo exchange:

    -ETH was mostly between $200 and $400 that time. Also went lower to 100's range for months. https://medium.com/switcheo/switcheo-lists-celsius-cel-b28c2856820c
    -ETH gas network used to be less than 20 gwei most of the time. Even during odd times it momentarily jumped, ETH price was low to justify the odd high network fee.
    -Switcheo had an option to charge users withdrawal fee in ETH instead of only CEL.
    -There was no deposit fees on Switcheo.
    -Mainly, Switcheo and Idex were the only exchanges with CEL listed. Yes, Uniswap did not have CEL listed.

    Now why CEL/ETH won't work on Demex:

    -ETH price and network fee is not the same now as it used to be during Switcheo days. It has become expensive to deposit/withdraw any erc-20 token on Demex because of high ETH price and network fee (you can't expect a user to stay inside L2 Demex. a user deposits/withdraws a token multiple times to/from exchange for various reasons).
    -Try explaining the average Joe that he will pay $30-60 for each deposit and withdrawal from Demex to personal wallet depending upon Ethereum conditions.
    -You might say but Demex trading is a few dollars cheaper than Uniswap, yes it is. But Uniswap users save the hassle of depositing and withdrawing from the exchange every time. Just swap and boom, right into MetaMask.
    -Now there is Uniswap, Quickswap (dexes), FTX, Liquid (cexes) doing major volume for CEL.



  • As for your proposal, can experiment with listing CEL/ETH (so the fascination is over and myth is proved that CEL/ETH did wonders for Switcheo exchange and will repeat the same performance on Demex) by reducing pool weight little from pairs other than 3 SWTH pairs. Reducing from BTCB/WBTC makes the most sense.

    BNB/BUSD is not going to bring any volume. Binance, pcs and other bsc dexes is already for this.

    *It would have been nice if you would have mentioned that if only CEL/ETH and BNB/BUSD is listed, what weights to give them and reduce from what pairs. But you have posted a complete overhaul of all LP in the process.



  • @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    What is the reason to list nGAS/nNEO and NEX/nNEO after NEO3 launch? In fact, should list these pairs immediately after Switcheo exchange is retired on 30th April unless of course custom NEX contract and nGAS wrapper is not ready. Other than that, no reason to wait for these pairs listing on Demex. It would take Flamingo or just one other exchange to take away NEX (nep5) volume if Demex keeps waiting till NEO3. So if the team is serious about migrating NEX/NEO Switcheo exchange volume to Demex, list this pair now instead of timing it with NEO3 for whatever logic other than it is not ready or technical issues. Otherwise forget NEX altogether on Demex. Not the end of the world.

    Currently we have nNEO a wrapped NEO from Flamingo. Problem is if we get native NEO this token is not equal to nNEO. Technically these are two different tokens. If we list GAS/nNEO and NEX/nNEO but want to switch to real NEO the pair needs to be removed and replaced with the correct one.

    @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    SWTH/nNEO on Demex is not required at the moment as Flamingo is already there for that with good liquidity. Switcheo exchange users who like to trade SWTH/NEO can trade there. As for liquidity provider, why will someone lock SWTH/nNEO on Demex unless you can beat the Flamingo APY of 48.98% for this pair.

    I saw this argument from you many times. If you continue this why not sunset Demex, other exchanges offer better ARPs and more Liquidity. SWTH/NEO is the main pair form Switcheo why shouldn't we list it?

    @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    Reducing weight % for SWTH/ETH, SWTH/USDC, SWTH/BUSD needs to be well thought and proceeded with caution. There is Pancakeswap already offering a better APR than Demex for SWTH/BNB. Not even talking about APR % putting that lp token in Beefy, Autofarm, Swamp.
    You don't want a situation where above 3 pairs APR goes low that people start removing liquidity as soon as their 1 month lock is over. Especially it is an insult to SWTH/ETH liquidity providers which is the highest at $5.7m liquidity and only 21.39% APR as of this writing. For comparison, just staking SWTH APR on TradeHub is 34%.
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Complacency should not set in thinking that SWTH/ETH and SWTH/USDC liquidity is good right now so tinker with lowering weight %. In fact, SWTH/BUSD liquidity reduced by about 800k-1m USD recently and hence that pool APR increased providing an opportunity.

    I think I will rework the pool weight so the change is not to high. 20% -> 17/18%. The missing Liquidity form NEO/BUSD can already be seen in daily volume. From $100k to $30-40k. Speaking of ARP this increased, and soon we should see entering liquidity again.

    @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    I don't see BNB/BUSD bringing any volume. Pancakeswap is already there for that. In fact for any bep20/bep20 pair listing on Demex, it is better to integrate pcs order books into Demex rather than building our own bsc pools and launching new pairs. Users will just swap on pcs or the second or third of BSC dexes instead of using Demex. As for liquidity providers for such pairs, if you don't beat or come closer to providing APR % of similar pairs on other dexes, they are not going to come to you.

    Definitly there will be volume if we add pool weight. Even if there is not that much liquidity locked we still do volume. We dont need $10m liquidity pools to generate volume. $1m pool is enough to generate $10m volume per month. See NEO/BUSD.

    @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    As for your proposal, can experiment with listing CEL/ETH (so the fascination is over and myth is proved that CEL/ETH did wonders for Switcheo exchange and will repeat the same performance on Demex) by reducing pool weight little from pairs other than 3 SWTH pairs. Reducing from BTCB/WBTC makes the most sense.

    The team decided to make a proposal for CEL/ETH so it is listed anyway. Next is creating a pool(without pool weight) and then we can see if liquidity comes. Maybe I will provide a few $ to bootstrap the pool.

    @nwo said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    *It would have been nice if you would have mentioned that if only CEL/ETH and BNB/BUSD is listed, what weights to give them and reduce from what pairs. But you have posted a complete overhaul of all LP in the process.

    Because my proposal targets to list all pairs I propose and rebalance all pool weights a bit. In my opinion a pool weight of 1% could bring atleast a minimum off liquidity to a pool to start trading. If the pool does not do enough volume with 1-2% pool weight it is still possible to remove the pool weight.

    Last but not least I want to thank you for the dicussion(so far).

    I will look at the CEL/ETH market and pool and will comeback to adjust the pool weights.

    As for WBTC/BTCB and USDC/BUSD I think I will drop the pool weight to 2%. WBTC/BTCB has way to much locked liquidity but generates to less volume. USDC/BUSD is very important but I saw already a lot of people placing limit orders -> 50% of the orders are from users.
    users: http://54.255.5.46:5001/get_orders?market=busd1_usdc1&initiator=user&order_status=open
    amm: http://54.255.5.46:5001/get_orders?market=busd1_usdc1&initiator=amm&order_status=open



  • I updated the pool weights and removed SWTH/nNEO(lets wait for NEO3) and SWTH/BTCB(too much pairs at once).

    Accoding to the feedback I increased the pool weight for SWTH/ETH and SWTH/USDC to 18%. I lowered WBTC/BTCB to 1%, this pool is currently "abused" for free money.



  • @Devel484 said in Additional Markets and Pool Weight Adjustments:

    I updated the pool weights and removed SWTH/nNEO(lets wait for NEO3) and SWTH/BTCB(too much pairs at once).

    Accoding to the feedback I increased the pool weight for SWTH/ETH and SWTH/USDC to 18%. I lowered WBTC/BTCB to 1%, this pool is currently "abused" for free money.

    "I saw this argument from you many times. If you continue this why not sunset Demex, other exchanges offer better ARPs and more Liquidity. SWTH/NEO is the main pair form Switcheo why shouldn't we list it?"

    Good joke. Curious to know where and how many times you saw this argument from me.

    And you went from telling me that how SWTH/nNEO was needed on Demex to lets wait for NEO3, Haha. And for SWTH/BTCB - too much pairs at once. But while reducing weights of 3 SWTH pairs and other too much pairs at once (10 plus) no issue eh?

    List SWTH/nNEO, SWTH/BTCB. Even better add SWTH/BNB and SWTH/WBTC also.

    Will bring millions of volumes like the recently listed pairs of BTCB/BUSD, BNB/BUSD, CEL/ETH.



  • A bit late to the party, I would suggest that changes be incremental rather than a sweeping change.

    A sweeping change proposal could potentially backfire as:

    1. This is complex and affects a lot of people. Holders might not fully understand the impact until it hits.
    2. A sweeping change will also cause a lot of confusion about the old/new apys for various pools.
    3. Holders who are locked have no ability to unlock if it negatively impacts them.

    Therefore I suggest that the approach should be about proposals that change one thing at a time until we reach equilibrium or have nothing left to change.

    It's similar to the hill-climbing algorithm where we can reach a locally optimum point by simply making incremental decisions that are beneficial to us.



  • Volume since the proposal passed. I've added the relative triangular share (relative to total share). I execluded future markets, due to that the sum of total share is not 100%.

    # Market Volume Total Share Rel. Tri. Share Liquidity Cur. Boost
    1 eth1_usdc1 $5,797,117.93 16.6729% 28.4846% $251,068 8
    2 swth_usdc1 $5,602,152.92 16.1121% 16.7492% $1.21m 18
    3 swth_busd1 $3,241,817.65 9.3237% 18.0958% $213,667 8
    4 swth_eth1 $2,371,613.74 6.8209% 38.8751% $393,117 18
    5 busd1_usdc1 $2,300,426.18 6.6162% 44.1460% $519,272 3
    6 bnb1_busd1 $2,017,762.76 5.8032% 15.8395% $118,670 6
    7 nneo2_busd1 $1,974,220.26 5.6780% 16.9223% $130,405 4
    8 wbtc1_usdc1 $1,355,299.41 3.8979% 47.8987% $249,731 7
    9 nneo2_eth1 $1,205,559.14 3.4673% 31.7546% $122,388 4
    10 eth1_wbtc1 $834,110.82 2.3990% 67.7240% $377,011 4
    11 bnb1_eth1 $787,506.97 2.2649% 40.6574% $87,114 6
    12 nneo2_usdc1 $766,435.07 2.2043% 33.9907% $52,784 2
    13 cel1_busd1 $704,025.30 2.0248% 38.7616% $138,568 3
    14 btcb1_busd1 $580,330.33 1.6691% 16.3458% $65,244 4
    15 cel_eth $453,276.16 1.3037% 60.2875% $46,259 2
    16 cel1_usdc1 $452,672.93 1.3019% 35.1293% $63,449 2
    17 wbtc1_btcb1 $220,467.96 0.6341% 42.9432% $159,721 1
    18 nex1_usdc1 $21,624.64 0.0622% 0.0000% $2,895.54 0

    Edit: Added Liquidity and current pool weights


Log in to reply