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


@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.

Cider seems incomplete and the dates given are just estimates. So much uncertainty and including Cider in the proposal as a rushed last minute add is turning out too be a mistake imo. There’s still so much that needs to get ironed out and voted on by the community for the Cider proposal. Top delegates control the vote and of course Cider will pass because of this since that’s what top 10 delegates want.

By the looks of it, the token wont be unlocked until next year. smh

Good evening, boys&girls. I 'm super excited that 0xcider model is winning snapshot, and will deliver the best code & interface possible. Let 'me give you update on @ov3rkoalafied asks:

code progress

Code is done, I am writing tests, looking good.

  • One good auditor is ready to start on Monday December 5, and will only take a week or a week and a half for all changes if any at all (probablly less). If we go with this option, the cider contract and interface can be ready for 14 December. The code can be covered with 1 or maximum 2 auditor days, just so you know. It 's not complex.
  • Another option is Chainsecurity and then code would be ready a little bit later, with everything to be delivered on December 18 aproximately. Not yet confirmed, but giving you aproximate scenario. They are spectacular auditors, maybe it is worth it. I will improve interface then?


Early contributors are not able to claim their tokens before full transferability anyway, because that would require vesting contracts to get “transferability” role. They are not getting it in my plan. Therefore, whether it is December 14 or 18 - doesn’ t matter in this scenarious?

The above matters because Dec25 - Jan1 are usually time off for many peoples. That period can be perfect time for the FairTrading stage, because $gear will be liquid for those who want to sell, but it will be in calm setting. If everything (stage $gear, stage $eth) finish before December 25, then 1-2 weeks can be considered for FairTrading. Everyone can have calm holidays?

Dates suggested are taken as worst-case scenario. All should be finished before, but i don 't wish to over-promise. I wrote above that contributors can’t sell during 0xcider regardless.

What if we take this plan:

  • now - 18.12: allow claims for $gear LM for passive pool providers and retroactive community rewards from the previous vote (this way, they can participate in 0xcider)
  • 18.12: cider live, interface live. $gear stage goes for 2 days.
  • 20.12: $eth stage opens, goes for 2 days.
  • 22.12: FairTrading phase starts, anyone can sell (with fee) or buy (no fee)
  • 04.01: $gear live, 0xcider ends!

Practically speaking, trading opens already before Christmas. Anyone can buy or sell. Just that during Christmas and New Year it’s not as explosive, so the pool stays in FairTrading mode.

Safer. Securer. Splendid?

variables YOU need to tell me

  1. Days for accepting $gear & $eth. I suggest using 2 & 2 (48 hours), or maybe 3 & 3. Doing it longer than that seems to be of no reason. This is enough time for people to decide.

  2. Min amounts for the cider contract: $gear and $eth. The ranges dictate the price levels $gear can end up in: min<>max. The LP price range depends on parameters.
    I suggest using ranges worth ~$2.5 M each.
    — min_gear_amount: 135M; max_gear_amount: 235M.
    — min_eth_amount: 2,000 [$2.35M]; max_eth_amount: 2,500 [$2.95M]
    This would make $gear range price: $0.0125 - $0.0175, it comes from the formulae.

  3. FairTrading duration. As per my above note about timing, I suggest using this range for the Christmas-New Year. That is 7 to 14 days depending on when the start is. No strong reason for this, you decide. I am simply giving you suggestions.

  4. FairTrading selling fee. I suggest taking 30% at the start → down to 0% incrementally over each block. As soon as FairTrading phase ends, the fee becomes 0% automatically. Only regular Curve V2 pool fee stays, that is close to what Balancer or Uniswap have.

These points can be argued on and discussed in this thread, please guide me.

Other rules YOU can dictate to me, so they can be taken as constants:

  1. If either side fails to hit minimum → return all funds, decide on new plan. The funds would all be automatically returned to participants, and DAO can vote on the emergency plan. Good?

  2. FairTrading fee on buying during the Christmas period - is to be the normal Curve pool fee, no extra fee coming from FairTrading. Good?

  3. Curve pool params such as A, gamma, fees, etc. Recommended values here.


I am making one, but you don’t need it! To participate, you just send $gear or $eth to the cider contract. $gear is sent by approving and calling “commitGEAR” and $eth can be just sent directly to the contract. That’s it. The price will be calculated by the contract. Easy participation!

can I buy before Chrtismas?

Yes you can!

  1. Participate in 0xcider and buy 50% of $gear into your LP position. You can withdraw your LP position after FairTrading phase and buy for the remaining of $eth you put in. 100% in $gear!
  2. OR buy during FairTrading phase. There will be no extra fee for buying during it.

can I sell before Chrtismas?

Yes you can!

  1. Participate in 0xcider and sell 50% of $gear into the LP position. You can withdraw your LP position after FairTrading phase and sell the remaining $gear you put in. 100% in $eth!
  2. OR sell during either FairTrading phase or after - while FairTrading has fees (30% or 15% or 5%) - it also allows you to trade with the pool earlier than others. So if you think that there will be a huge sell-off, it is probably worth it to sell even with fees. Interface will show this.

what price will i buy or sell at?

The ranges dictate the price levels $gear can end up in: min<>max. The LP price range depends on parameters. The suggestion in point 2 suggests ranges that will make $gear price between $0.0125 - $0.0175. I can help you decide on ranges if you tell me what valuation you want to have.

ps : $0.0125 - $0.0175 means $gear CMC around $11-$15 M. circulating is about 9%?

good night. and let 's make the best plan

Hello, ser. A question about FairTrading.why gear still needs to be non-transferable in case of MEV bots?there will be MEV when user buys at Curve and provides liquidity on any other DEX if gear is transferable,but if there is sandwich attack on Curve,how you collect these profits faster than mev bots? Please explain the necessarity of non-transferability at this stage

It 's a funky concept I came up with, to democratisize early dumpers into becoming source of rewards for those LPs who stay. Took the idea from ChickenBonds of Liquity Protocol.

Technically speaking, $gear has to be non-transferable during this stage, or people would just go swap on some other pool with n0 extra fees. It is not real “MEV”, just compared it to it. You call a separate function in the contract to swap (trade) during this stage. It isn’ t MEV directly. Capisce?

Nice work sir, thanks for fighting through

1 Like

It seems like you are consideing arbitraging between pools , so what if mev bot ‘buy first,sell later’,I don’t think it’s realistic and reasonable to limit trading behaviors,so there is mev profit captured by bot if a big buy order gets sandwiched on Curve.In this scenario, it doesn’t matter to make gear still be non-transferable despite you prevent arbitrage between pools.
Another issue is about the fee collected in fairtrading, your initial thought is put these profits into LM contract, but how much will the fee be within 14 days to support the 6-month LM? I personally prefer it be tranferable on trading stage.

The core idea is this: if we just set up a normal pool and made $gear transferable, sellers would start a bidding war on ETH protocol level to sell first and get a better price. The profits from those bidding wars would go to Flashbot operators.

The fair trading phase is designed to spread out these sell transactions over time and route these bidding wars profits to LPs in the process. E.g., you could pay 30% to push a flashbot bundle in a “normal pool”, or you can pay the same 30% here to sell earlier than others - the difference is where profits go.

Same goes for, ex. 15% fee - if you pay 15% to flashbots, you’ll get in close to a middle of the pile, which corresponds here to selling in the middle of the fair trading period.

The actual discount values, are of course negotiable, feel free to tell if they seem too low / too high compared to a typical flashbots premium

1 Like

@ 0xcider Thanks, I get what your point is,personally support the overall framework but some parameters should be adjusted, mainly on decreasing fee and fair trading duration(like 14% and 7 days )

1 Days for accepting $gear & $eth. 2+2 days sounds enough.
2-4 Min amounts for the cider contract: $gear and $eth. IIRC 2.5M USD of ETH allowed for a 25% dump of circulating supply? Sounds good enough, but dunno if that accounted for the tokens that will start to unvest at the 15th of December + unlocked tokens from LP farmers (if they’re unlocked). If LP farmers are unlocked, it’ll likely be easy to fill the $GEAR side.
5. Both 7 days and 14 days of fair trade duration sounds good. Those worried about tokens unvesting would probably prefer 7 days, so I’d go with that, even if it’s in the middle of Christmas season. Both durations should do enough of a good job to prevent MEV to be extracted
6. No opinion on selling fee % amount. Anything above 15% should likely do the trick.

Auto-returning funds in case of min-amount not achieved sounds good.
Fee on buying sounds silly. Can’t see the point in doing it.
I’m not a right-curvooor so I don’t have an opinion on curve pool parameters.

Great job on this. Fun times and I think this definitely improved the status quo for launching liquidity in a few things.

Problems persisting imo:

  1. I worry about the amount of sticky liquidity after FairTrade is over, even with seller fees being distributed to LPs. Harder to see the incentive to LP later on, but I don’t have a solution for this.
  2. It’s a bummer we’ll lose the Balancer incentives that were discussed previously.
1 Like

Hi 0xCider. Great plan if this can be all put into code. The multistage liquidity building process and letting gear dumpers exit early is very well thought out.

The only change that I can propose is to swap ETH for FraxBP as the pairing asset. I suggested this in the previous thread and will explain a bit more here.

GEAR will need 2 seperate LPs at some point for arbitrage purposes. In your current plan the idea is to use ETH in both the balancer and curve pools. Frax BP as the pairing asset for curve addresses the point you make in your plan that bribes are expensive and probably should not be used. I agree.

However if you use FraxBP, Frax as a protocol will do a few things:

  1. Frax will distribute the CRV+CVX revenue it earns back to the GEAR metapools proportional to the amount of total FRAXBP. This is “rev share” on the project level between DAOs.

The amount of incentives is proportional to the size of each metapool compared to the total fraxbp TVL. For example, if fraxbp has $1B TVL and a metapool has $20m TVL, then 1% of the fraxbp Votium bribes go to that metapool since $10m/$1B=1%

This leads into point 2

  1. Frax will use it’s entire CRV and CVX voting power to vote for gauges on both platforms. Frax will ensure gear gets a gauge and that it always recieves rewards.

  2. CVXGearFraxBP Lp will also get a gauge with Frax. This creates long term locked liquidity on a 1 year time frame. Mechanics can potentially be built into this release system to lock liquidity for 1 year initially to take part and ensure no one pulls LP after the full release of all tokens.

  3. Gear should commit to having it’s ETH pair LP on balancer. 500k of ETH can be set aside by the DAO to pair with GEAR at a later date.

Hope this gives a few ideas on why FraxBP pairing would be best for GEAR curve.