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

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.

FAQ

  • 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.
5 Likes

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

2 Likes

I very much appreciate this proposal.
Innovating and finding more efficent methods for distribution is key to have a successful coin and project.

I mostly agree with the proposal and i think that the benefits massively overweight the issues. Of which, most of them can be solved.

It seems like most of the users heavily disagree with launching the token at a 150 FDV even if its a fair price imo.
I would suggest, instead of setting a fixed price target, we take a page from the solana playbook. We run a liquidity IDO.

Phase 1 and Phase 2 should happen simultaneously, and we call it contribution phase.
The contribution phase will last 24 hours where willing buyers and sellers will deposit their GEAR and ETH tokens in a contract. This mechanism will be also used to determine the pool launching price, as we can use the ratio of GEAR to ETH committed to find the initial price of the pool.

After the contribution phase we might want to run a withdrawal phase, where people that are not satisfied with the price reached can pull out of the deal in the subsequent 24 hours.

At the end of the 48 hours we will have a ratio of ETH and GEAR that accurately represents the price at which people are willing to sell and buy the tokens and we will pool those assets in a curve pool as you suggested

We could also technically introduce another phase between withdrawal and liquidity deployment where people can decide to convert their liquidity position into pure tokens by taking a 10% loss (that will go to liquidity mining funds or be committed as permanent liquidity)

2 Likes

Oh no, you can’t say that it’s impolite for me to disagree with you. Everyone will have their own suggestions to discuss here. Maybe my expression is a little inaccurate, but this is a DAO, so you have to learn to listen to various opinions. There may even be three or four points of view, which is very normal, isn’t it?

You have my sword! A solid proposal and offer of help

This is great idea :white_check_mark:
Tokemak had something similar when they were launched

en,You talked me into it,I suddenly think this is gonna be great!

It’s pretty obvious that a Gnosis Auction will probably fail. Even if the demand is high during the auction, who’s gonna buy at listing?

Most people being against this proposal didn’t even bother to understand it properly. They just wanna get transferability as soon as possible to dump their bag of $GEAR.

2-3 weeks delay doesn’t make any difference. Adding +15% circulating supply at launch does make a difference.

I didn’t read any valid arguments from people against it “meeeeh no more delay” “meeeh transferability in 2 days or nothing”. Come on guys, it’s not like we are in absolute bull market and need to rush for any kind of momentum lmao.

1 Like

Use gnosis auction dont delay more, how do you think you can get buyers with delaying token transferbility every day,you forced ca miners and early contributors to hold gear 1 year and now want to buy from them with very cheap price ,also if anyone dont want to sell coins with cider strategy what will going one ?NOTHING just delay token transferbility

1 Like