Snapshot is for gathering off-chain sentiment around a proposal to see if it has enough community buy-in to be escalated to a formal proposal.
“Official” proposals (the ones voted on through interfaces like gov.radicle.network) are on-chain and executable code, whereas Snapshot proposals can be polls that can be used to drive the creation of an official on-chain proposal.
How long will the on-chain vote last?
All official proposals are subject to a 3-day voting period.
Is it more efficient to direct the funds to a single pool (e.g. Uniswap), or to split them between a few exchanges? If the existing balancer pool is restarted, is there actually any reason to move the funds to another pool?
Excess liquidity is not necessary at this stage.
Excess supply will only adversely affect the price.
Do you want more people to own tokens?
Take into account the participants in LBP.
$RAD is not even listed on the major exchanges and the price is high.
It will be obvious what will happen.
Are there any LBP participants who would agree to this?
I don’t understand.
I am supporting this project and its products, but before that I am an investor.
Why is there no discussion how doing this helps with the goal of p2p git? It just seems to be a bunch of people angling to get more tokens.
It would be more efficient in terms of slippage to have it in one pool, especially if there is not a lot of liquidity. However, having two pools would allow arbitrage between the two. A very important ingredient for automated market makers.
Its possible that LPs might actually operate at a loss due to impermanent loss though. If a vote for using treasury funds for LP is unable to pass, maybe RAD can be traded for LP tokens or something to that extent as a way to incentivize people to pool their tokens. If our priority is liquidity that is.
Looking at this from another angle: how much liquidity would be a good number? There’s $800k in uniswap right now. The people that voted for opening up the pool again represent $10 mil (TEN MILLION DOLLARS) worth of holdings. (They could just do the liquidity themselves…)
How much liquidity does the project need for it to help the goal of p2p git?
Good question, this also might be the kind of thing that sorts itself out over time haha. Maybe our best option is just to wait.
It appears that there is already a Uniswap RAD-ETH pair with over 35,000 Radicle. I think there is no reason to vote against this proposal, as more liquidity is always better than none
more liquidity is always better than none
Well, along those lines then, should we go into the treasury and do even more liquidity if it is so great for the project? How about 99% of the treasury? If not, why not? Why the arbitrary number of what happens to be left over from before?
I still haven’t seen anyone state how much liquidity is appropriate nor how this furthers development of p2p git. It just seems to further the interests of token traders more than anything.
We cannot simply tell it and that’s why you have never heard. Enough liquidity supporting a 10 or 100 thousand $ equivalent token swap is always welcome of course.
I saw some people have been saying that adding liquidity will lead to speculative moves and it is not appropriate for this project. I am 100% against such comments, which those guys really don’t understand what “liquidity” really means and why it is essential for the healthy & stable operation of the project. Main function of “liquidity” is to mitigate risk. Without enough liquidity, indeed, that leads to the speculative move.
How does enabling $100k liquidity moves help make p2p git?
Definitely seems like the best option. Treasury funds should be directed to operations that help further the goal of p2p git. LP incentives is literally only good for “number go up”. It ultimately doesnt serve much useful purpose to helping the end goal of the project.
Personally speaking I think the best option other than waiting is to use the remaining balances from LBP to add liquidity. That makes more sense that allocating treasury funds which could be put to 1000 more useful purposes.
I wouldn’t demonize everything money related when it comes to building p2p git. My mental model is:
- In order to build p2p git we need a model to self sustain
- In order to self sustain we need a community owned token
- In order to prevent huge volatility we need liquidity…
The above might be wrong but I strongly believe there is a case for liquidity helping the project, not harming it. Low-liquidity assets are more likely to be subject to attacks.
I agree with your suggestion
how does ethereum being extremely liquid help with building a world computer? well, the more liquidity more ppl can invest in ETH. contributors to ethereum holds a lot of ETH. ETH price goes up then contributors has more money to spend on people and tools to build ETH.
the same is true for any project, including RAD
how does a governance token on the ethereum blockchain help make p2p git?
If you don’t like speculation and speculators from trying to make this coin great, then don’t launch a token, full stop.
If we want to get best liquidity, we should not talk about DEX!! Why we dont choose HuoBi, Okex and Biance?