[GIP-31/1] GEAR Strategy Cider’ed Liquidity

The market is real, no one can resist, you are good your token is worth money, you are not good, Ponzi economics can not save you. Face the market, auction is good

1 Like

This is clever.

Like a 2 party bond zapper contract. It’s certainly the best way to avoid the single sided entry selling.

I disagree with you, it’s too complicated. At present, the first thing to be done is to make the token flow.

No sorry. Most people find it too complicated to understand and the model doesn’t seem to be well received among users.

The plan you have now is good, but we can’t easily change the previous plan, because it has no major mistakes :wink:

I like this considerably more than Gnosis auction for a few reasons:

  1. No new inflation, which is good for the health of the token. As a consequence, the initial liquidity can be higher, since it’s no longer sourced from inflation.
  2. Avoids having to do an explicit ICO by the DAO, which may have legal and image consequences
  3. Implementing a liquidity discount to create a buffer of GEAR rewards is a fantastic idea IMO: it avoids DAO spending on liquidity incentivization (at least, initially) and gives a large incentive for ETH suppliers to bring their ETH early, to get in on larger rewards. Meanwhile, the GEAR dumpoors have a guaranteed exit price, unlike with Gnosis. That being said, I would set the target price to something like $0.2 per GEAR, so that CA miners can get an upside even with the liquidity discount.
  4. While the mechanism overall may seem more complex, the UX can be greatly simplified, especially for ETH suppliers - I believe this can be coded in such a way that the ETH supplier would only need to send ETH to a contract and will then immediately receive a balance on Convex/Aura. This is certainly simpler than strategizing the max price in Gnosis auction, although that depends on the price discovery mechanism as well.

I believe the timeline outlined by the OP is realistic from dev perspective, such a contract would not take more than a week to code (assuming familiarity with Curve/Balancer) + a week to do an audit.

Overall, I think that the DAO should encourage outside devs designing and coding novel mechanisms - instead of saying “why are you proposing this 2 days before the vote, are you a skemmer”, DAO participants should appreciate that a dev found time to design and describe the mechanism at all, without expecting much financial comp in return. Even though I haven’t seen the code yet, the mechanism design skills leave a very good impression.

Regarding the practical steps, I would add an option in the transferability vote: “Postpone 1 week to review alternative approaches”. By then the OP would be able to show the code and the DAO can decide between the two mechanisms based on a concrete implementation.

1 Like

sir,are you sure this will benefit our fdv?

I am opposed to this plan because it was launched at the wrong time, and it is also an untested plan. It is uncertain whether it will be successful, and it will take an uncertain longer time and money cost. :disappointed_relieved:

Youhhmm, will type my thoughts before going to bed. I see majority of voices against, having no valid reasons. I am coder, my approach is to verify code and math. Facts are while my concept might’nt be perfect, you have to understand that gnosis auction is terrible currently.

Gnosis Auction will kill $gear

There is no reason for new members to participate in auction - because each person knows that the price will be dumped next day auction finished. Read below why →

Auction models are either done as “the first distribution of tokens”, or as a “raise-more money during bull markets hype”. An auction doesn’t make sense in this environment. There is 0 reason for new members to participate in auction. Participants and holders will both be rekt. See my numbers!

If Gnosis Auction goes through, everyone in $gears community will suffer. You will get almost no demand from buyers, and it will be a failure. I can’t stress this enough :confused:

A rough model on how this would look like: 25% of current holders decide to sell, and that is totally normal to expect. If 25% of 10% of total supply are sold, that is 2.5% total supply = 250,000,000 GEAR.

See the price drops, assuming low arbitrage. This is very bad.

  • Negative scenario: 150 FDV end price $0.015, 2.25 M in the pool
  • Positive scenario: 300 FDV end price $0.030, 4.5 M in the pool

Auction model simply makes the DAO “dump” more tokens into the market, while not circumventing selling pressure. The 50-50 pool DAO would create - will simply get rekt, and the DAO will end up with more of its own GEAR tokens. Auction buyers will be in bad shape, holders will be in bad shape. The POL will not have any value because the price would be destroyed. Useless POL. Lose-lose.

“Cider’ed Liquidity” approach

If Cider’ed Liquidity is chosen instead, this 25% assumed sell pressure will be removed BEFORE trading starts. The higher the range chosen for the contract, the more supply can be taken out of the market.

Note: if you want to say that $gear depositors would only sell 50% of their holdings due to getting LP back (50-50) and would remove their LP to sell remaining → you can predict similar behavior from ETH depositors as well. Therefore, sellers and buyers would nullify the effects of each other.

This approach has many upsides:

  • no new inflation. after all, 1.5% is not small
  • buying out dumpers with new holders before trading begins
  • avoiding any legal risks and keeping all holders safer, good reshuffling
  • much BETTER for new participants compared to gnosis auction, doesn’t make them rekt

Minimum or no delay!

I am holder. I want to see gears do well. I assume you too? If yes, then 1-2 weeks difference max isn’t a problem. Core developer van0k confirmed that this concept is not too complecated.

I can deliver this code to you within 2 weeks maxx. Before December 10 you will have it final! The audit can be very quick. It is not complex code. You can also vote to not have audit.

  • You will choose BAD concept auction just to not wait 2 weeks?!
  • You will curse $gear launch just to unlock 2 weeks sooner?! WHY?!

Before end of year, $gear can be launched!

You can’t choose a bad model over a good one just because of the 1-2 weeks difference. That is extremely shortsighted to argue for! By arguing for “as soon as possible, no 2 delay, fuck waiting” you are exposing yourself as bad $gear holders. Change. Think.


  • Timing: I only need about 1 week to make good code. This is not big price. Because the vote will take 3 days total, it doesn’t differ that much with auction timing. Almost no delay. I hear you!
  • New participants: this model is much better than an auction and will likely get more demand. Yes it is a bit more complex, but it’s so much better for the future of $gear.

Thank you for correcting my math. Can you jump on a community call?

1 Like

just ignore people who are not providing reason and/or numeric solutions.

I don’t think your reply is polite, it is a dao and everyone’s proposal deserves to be respected. Are you a fake kol?

Wasn’t this going live in a couple of days two weeks ago? I have no problem being rational and going through the numbers while acknowledging a better option, but once again, this isn’t what was communicated… It’s all about setting deadlines and sticking to them, the other proposal should be put to a vote, a “no” could represent support for the current proposal. I’m not the only LP committing a large amount of capital to the protocol that’s growing tired of this. Additional and unforeseen set backs should be expected, it’s all so tiresome.

This makes sense to me from governance perspective. Sure, no argument against it.

Posted on discord before, but just to set it on the forum as well: 100% agreed that this shouldn’t delay the previous proposal being voted on, and this should only be considered if the other proposal doesn’t pass

1 Like

im sure if we use Cider’ed Liquidity ,people will not buy gear any more,just tell me ,you want buy gear after Dec 15?we need new attention from gnosis action,That’s easier for the public to understand than your plan

This is ban-worthy.

I support your point, but deploying a new strategy can’t take a lot of time, because you know why many people are against you, because they don’t want to continue to wait!

Since it’s really a proposal right now, can you list any successful launches? At present hackers rampant, code security issues have to be considered

just do it ,any help?i will never chose Cider’ed Liquidity