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

100%. Lets just vote to make the token transferrable. Everything else will get worked out with time


How do you propose LMing v3? I’m only aware of arrakis right now that works, but that would require forcing users to use a specific liquidity range that we determine. Which once again makes it helpful to have less volatility, so we have a better idea on price before opening it up. The reason low liquidity and volatility are not great is because it can make the LMing program ineffective. Hence finding a solution that pairs buyers with sellers in a way that aids in some pre-market price determination and somewhat deep liquidity.

Balancer bribes are a bit better than curve, it’s not a massive difference though. We could do balancer with a delay, or we could do curve with very little delay given cider and the gb devs already are familiar with curve v2. That’s the tradeoff as I understand.

We would do liquidity mining where ever the DAO chooses later on, it wouldn’t need to be on Uniswap. Most of the liquidity would simply move to the LM venue and perhaps some will stay, which is actually a good thing because having some UniV3 liquidity is good for discovery since Curve/Balancer pools are not integrated with most charting tools.

Aside from balancer being less familiar than Curve, their “internal balances” feature may pose an issue, since it would allow people to trade ETH => GEAR AND back afterwards even before transferability. While this would technically only allow them to push GEAR price in only one direction, they could try to sandwich GEAR dumpers or do some other attack I haven’t figured out yet

This is also somewhat possible with Curve by depositing one-sided, but can’t withdraw or trade back before transferability, so there it’s not an issue

I’m 50/50 on Cider’s proposal now… perhaps I was too harsh in the beginning. It has some good points, and I’m open to learning more when the vote goes live

At the time of writing, the vote is not posted yet, therefore, I ‘m not aware how a koala will phrase it. I observed different proposals being suggested, summarizing to:

  1. Don’t unlock. This should be a voting option, but doesn’t seem like it will pass.
  2. Just unlock, do nothing. Fwiw, this is lazy. Millie post here. You can argue for or against there on forum. I already explained above why I believe we can do better.
  3. Unlock and do normal LM. Fwiw, this is lazy but ok. Should be a voting option, but wouldn’t be my favorite. Again, we can do better. Millie post here.
  4. Gnosis Auction from the DAO funds. Everyone is against it now. Original proposal.
  5. Gnosis Auction from the community funds. Approximate post here. This concept is similar to my 0xcider model, but technically worse. In case you were a fan of the concept “sell community tokens at GA” - you are factually supporting 0xcider.
  6. 0xcider model. Included price discovery mechanism; early swap-trade FairTrading concept, and reduced complexity for participants.

6 choices for snapshot. Factually, 2-6 are to be summed up into total votes. 1 wins only if 1 > sum of all the other. Currently, not seeing this happen. Alternatively, as for the choice between 2-6, any one with the most votes wins.

That ‘s the best approach isn’t it? @ov3rkoalafied?

ser, you can write 10000 lines of code and you cannot stop a token from dumping lol.

It has nothing to do with lazy, if you are worried about the token being dumped then the best thing to do is not have a ton of liquidity readily available for ppl to exit on. You seem obsessed with controlling the way the token changes hands and it’s honestly bizarre… I’ve never seen a DAO so concerned with how the token trades post transferability


Give me 21 minute to fix the post and final concept. If you still believe the idea is bad, the voting will decide the plan eventually. I have superbig respect for you, so hope you get to liking it!

I should also mention that it might not be a great idea to do a number of proposals if the bulk of the work behind your plan has been done. Might as well proceed with that plan in that case

1 Like

It is up to DAO voting eventually, I could be wrong with these ideaz.


@RV_ivangbi please update header post by removing redundantsy.


My comments:

  1. I worry 0.0125->0.0175 is too restrictive, and it also undercuts the current LM valuation. 0.0125->0.02 would make the current LM valuation a possible outcome, so it seems like that should at least be the high end of the range.
  2. I think stepping down to 5% instead of 0% makes more sense, as there should still be some penalty for not actually supplying liquidity to the free market (that then pays those who do)
  3. I also don’t see a reason for the fairtrading to last 2 weeks. 1 week should be sufficient, no?
  4. “You will not know the exact final price, but you will know the range” → reiterating that the UI should show the price assuming max ETH is provided, and in a smaller box below show the current price with current ETH provided. This is more in line with gnosis auction, where you bid on a max price then potentially get a better price than you bid, and is a better UX to avoid ppl mad that the “price” they paid seems like it’s going up after they bid.
  5. Any reason to go lower for min ETH/gear amount? Maybe down to 100m. Lessens the chance of this option failing, is there any big drawback to that reduction?
  6. I like the optional idea for the 500k. it results in the DAO supplying liquidity without actually releasing any additional GEAR. I would change this to part of the official vote, not optional.

@0xcider would love to see you address these last comments, either make the changes or a quick reason why you don’t want to (it’s your proposal, so up to you what you want to change) at which point I think we can vote.

#1, #2, #3 will all kinda be combined options, where people don’t want gnosis or 0xcider and want something else. Intent being if the combined option of “neither, do something else” wins then we can immediately vote on “flip the switch”, or “flip switch with LM”, or “do not enable yet”.

My reasoning is #2 and #3 were ruled thru the entire process over the last year, so I don’t particularly want to offer those as voting options (would feel like offering degenesis as a voting option to some degree). I also don’t really see any articulate feedback on these posts (even if the post is articulated) beyond “yes quick good” which makes me think ppl are just impatient and aren’t really thinking through any of the discussion of the last year. #5 I think has some technical issues and I agree that if the UI is presented well (see item #4) then it will be the same/better.

All taken. I have no objections, these are all variables.

  1. Capisce, sounds good. But keep in mind that large ranges can become too much variability for participants. They want something more definite, the increase on top (given market is bad) might not be the best idea. But up to your thinking, I am good with both.
  2. Capisce, sounds good.
  3. Capisce, sounds good. One week. But then unlocking during Christmas might not be that useful, thus, my option to unlock on Jan 3 at the end. More spaced out then?
  4. These amounts are dependent on $$ size for cider and FDV of gear. They are formulas.
  5. Capisce, sounds good.

Yeah sorry for #4 I think everything is somewhat dependent on each other, so a more valid comment would have been to reduce the variables necessary to reduce minimum size. But that would affect other things as well so mb not important.

Anyway, I think it’s ready for vote. At this point it’s minutia that can be settled by dao workers or by a vote if certain variables need to be voted on. Will put to vote in a couple hours

1.5% supply is 15% increase if we take into account 10% as initial supply, this is what I meant.

1 Like

This proposal is option 1 in the GIP-31: Snapshot

this. 1 week > 2 weeks

I also have a feeling not many users will provide their GEAR tokens for Cider

1 Like

It’s a good setup for LPers, so even people who want to hold GEAR may want to contribute. If I understand right, someone could also deploy GEAR and WETH at the same time if they want to LP and don’t want to sell any tokens to do so.

what’s the reason for the 30% penalty to those who wish to sell as soon as 0xCider goes live? just curious why penalize those who were contributors to the protocol early on (CA Miners, early discord, etc). Is the only reason to accumulate more fees to LPs?

seems like a low blow to CA miners who only have 100k tokens and want to get their ETH back during tough times. It’s like saying…thanks for your ETH a year ago when creating those credit account contracts for Gearbox. You’ve held for over a year but if you want to sell as soon as possible, here’s a 30% fee for selling.