4 day 's good. 7 day 's good. Less then 4 is too short. Instruct me what to hardcode.
Items 1-3 maybe should go to vote as a “finalizing” proposal
Yes, extra finalizing proposal with multiple choice?
In total, needed details & proposals for:
0xcider finalizing proposal [include all variables]. I will communicate on the audit prices and the name chosen before tomorrow. It’s likely ready sooner than I thought.
DAO funds usage proposals: either top up 0xcider if the min is not reaching, or use $300,000 K in Baancer pool around middle of month January. Details are above.
Who is taking care of it - Chainsecurity Start: Dec5. End: by the end of next week Dec11.
@ov3rkoalafied costs are to be within 16,000 USDC or less. Please include in final cider remarks.
I shall be sharing code with everyone by tomorrow evening, final commit. Anyone can look then.
While audit is ongoing, I will finish a simple interface for the 0xcider stages. You will not require an interface though, it will be either calling 1 function (for $gears holders) on Etherscan - or directly send $eths to the contract. Easiest interaction ever, boys&girls!
timing
Monday Dec 12 is when multisig transactions can be prepared, while everyone is back to work. Should the audit find no major flaws, start of 0xcider can be scheduled as Dec13 Tuesday.
I will help instruct the multisig on what is needed, with the help of van0k if required.
This is manageable should there be no major flaws in code or multisig delays. Worst case scenario it would add a few days, but no more than a week. $gears shall all be liquid before end of Dec!
Early contributors are not able to claim their tokens before full transferability, because that would require vesting contracts to get “transferability” role. They are not getting it in my plan. No early member is able to take part in 0xcider, it 's only accessible to the community.
The point of the fee is to turn MEV into long-form selling/buying. Liquidity can have a race to both buy and sell. If we only have a fee for selling GEAR, does that not create some artificial imbalanced buy pressure? We aren’t trying to be ichi here, don’t want to create a stairs up elevator down effect. I’m still leaning towards keeping the buy fee. The main reason I can see to remove it is if we are worried about demand. Ie, stairs up elevator down could be a problem in a bull market but in this more depressed and potentially more rational market it may not be a problem?
If these are all configurable values at the DAO’s discretion I don’t see why we wouldn’t want to have minimal buy fees right? If we can set it to zero even better imo, the lower the barrier to entry for potential $GEAR holders the better imo.
Will see how the fair launch timing discussion progresses. I think 6 days would be nice, Dec 17-23rd. If there’s general agreement then could simplify the proposal.
@0xcider do you have a list of the proposed curve pool params?
One big diff between uni v3 and curve is fee for veCRV’ers. Curious what fee % is being used and what % will go to veCRV. In general my intent would be to imitate a uni v2 0.3% pool as closely as possible.
Interface and contract will be deployed on mainnet within a-few hrs. Please release 16164,26 USDC to Chainsecurity into this address 0x8baf5eaf92e37cd9b1fccd676918a9b3d4f87dc7, their final quote.
Start: Dec5. End: by the end of next week Dec11.
