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

This proposal’s purpose is to buy back GEAR from early DAO participants. Giving no premium at 150M FDV means early community testers, CA miners and V1 LP providers either break even or take a small loss (taken from CAM fee) - for a 1 year forced hold at current time.

With crvUSD and veYFI right around the corner, anyone who sells their GEAR to this LP will be paperhanding GEAR at multiples below market conditions and sound logic.

If this proposal passes, LP must be at 250M-300M FDV. Otherwise at 150M FDV, any seller is just a sucker and GearboxDAO will effectively exercise a put option against earliest community supporters right before DeFi Season.

Judging by support from everyone relevant, proposal will pass. Frens, don’t sell your GEAR to LP or have fun staying poor shortly after transferability occurs.


No more slow down plz. Why its even necessary?

1 Like

the idea seems too raw and the wait/timing of it all along with the added security risks of a new contract seems unnecessary at this stage. plus, all the marketing/articles with dates and info of the gnosis auction and token transferability have already been published. it might not be the best look to outsiders with the last minute changes and uncertainties.

stick with what already works and no more delays!!


I like your idea very much, I think it is very cool and very creative, I hope your idea gets more attention. I agree that it can simply avoid more $gear being sold in the early stage, which is very beneficial to the long-term development of the project.

Some people, because of their own interests, say some inappropriate things, the butt decides the head, I don’t think you should pay too much attention to their opinions. Try to improve your idea and I’m sure more people will support you. Go for it!

Appreciate the effort but disagree entirely with this proposal. If you were wanting to implement something like this, it should have been proposed months ago. At this point, no one knows who you are, why you waited this long, and what the actual motives behind this are. If this came from Ivan, or a core contributor, sure it deserves some thought. But right now, it’s looking like you are someone from Sam’s team or something wonky like that.

Encourage everyone to vote on the upcoming transferability vote without considering this proposal. Please make sure all of your delegates are voting the way that you guys want or remove and redelegate or vote on your own!


I think this idea is from a whale who is trying to buy the Gear token from early supporters with cheapest price. Later on the whale can dump the gear token on the open market. No reason to support it as the unproven social experiment concept compared to the established and well-discussed gnosis auction model. The intent to raise this discussion before the vote to token transferability is questionable and not good at all.


DO NOT agree. Maybe your idea is good, but it doesn’t fit the time. We have the GIP-32 ready and ready to vote. You’re wasting our time and GEAR


Also, I think you’re Andre.
You write like Andre, have Andre’s idea style… If you are Andre, hello sir! But still don’t agree with this proposal at all.

1 Like

I find your motives really ridiculous. You sent out this new economic model two days before we were going to vote. What were you doing before? If you had published this article two months ago I might have thought otherwise. But what you are doing at this time makes me think that you are not really thinking about the community.


Thank you so much for taking the time to write this very very very complex proposal! :face_with_spiral_eyes: I believe no people are willing to sell tokens at a unit price of 1Geartoken0.015U. If you are willing to buy the tokens in my hand at the unit price of 1Gear1.5U, I am willing to sell it to you, after all, I have spent a year in it. :money_mouth_face:


Who will support this decision? I only see you who use butt instead of your head support this idea. (You said first not me. Just using your word, lol) It would be foolish to throw away an already mature proposal and spend a lot of time and money on a new one that isn’t safe.

1 Like

Please read all replies carefully! I think 99% of people will not agree with your proposal, you should give up your unrealistic idea because it is not necessary, you are doing something that does not make any sense. Besides, your proposal is no more perfect than the original plan. It’s getting in the way of the original plan, and if you’re serious about this, you should have initiated the proposal weeks or even months ago, not now, you know? 1. The price of your proposal 0.015 is unreasonable. 2. The time when the proposal was initiated is unreasonable. 3. Your motivation is also unreasonable. You should stop your proposal. The people will just think of you as a ridiculous clown.

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?