TLDR, my reasoning below (largely in agreement with GRIN)
Modify variables to achieve a range of $0.0125-$0.0175
DAO should supply $500k if ETH goal isn’t met.
7 day duration.
30%->0% good, too low will defeat the purpose of it.
Failure → return funds is good
I’m unsure on the buy fee → does removing it make it so ppl will once again flashbots to buy/sell? Ie, it seems like this should apply to both buy AND sell to have the desired effect.
Curve params → mimic uni v2 as closely as possible.
Agreed on 2+2. Also agree that 7 days is fine, later is also new years anyway so yeah just do 7 days. Some people might be busy with family, other people might have days off, so kinda washes out. Flashbots MEV is like an instant thing, and given the main reason for this period is to replace that 7 days feels like plenty.
For people that wish to LP but don’t particularly want to sell, they can deposit GEAR and ETH - but that takes some capital. I’d like to see the maximum raised to 0.02 so people at least know if they LP there’s a chance they still sell at the most recent valuation. If we don’t hit the max that’s fine, we don’t need $6m of liquidity total so it’s OK to risk overshooting a tad IMO. And the use case of depositing GEAR AND WETH is still intact, which I think will provide a decent amount of ETH supply (plus the DAO $500k).
I like the justification for the 30% fee based on flashbots experience, so I’m fine keeping that. I’d rather have the first day be low activity then set the fee too low and end up not actually solving the flashbots issue (ie, too low of fee = potentially doesn’t actually solve intended problem).
Curve params: the doc reccomends a minimum A of 4000 but the sim shows that as very flat. Not sure II understand their reccomendation. I would like to immitate something like uni v2 as closely as possible, simply for LPer simplicity. This system is already new enough, no need to add brand new LPing curves into the mix with it.
Lastly I want to propose that if this is executed cider’d does get paid for this at whatever hourly rate our other devs are at (ie, basically considered a contributor for this effort).
I think the DAO could commit a small amount of GEAR for the first ~month. The intent being that during that month, we would pursue a crv/cvx gauge - if it takes a bit longer, that’s fine. Then once the gauge is live, we can do a proposal to decide if we should keep LMing, how much, and via what method (straight LM or bribes). Could also consider FBP at this time.
1 month of extra LM from the DAO, at 10% APR (a bit low cuz there will also be APR from the cider’d fees) on let’s say $3m of liquidity would be 0.0167% of supply, or 1.6m gear tokens. Extremely tiny, esp when compared to gnosis auction being ready to release 150m tokens on the market.
I don’t think set the fee still be 30% is appropriate for dealing with mev when the duration decreases to 7 days,seller needs to wait for 5 days before the discount drops below 10% , in this scenario,it is likely to see a significant increase in trading activity in the last two days of that duration,which may lead to bidding war again,2% daily decrease seems more smooth,just like initial idea, 30% with 14 days, lower the fee as decrease the duration.
I have shared code with developers and auditors, will also open it to you all in two days. I 'mcraping rusty parts and waiting for the auditor deadlines. Will keep you posted, moving fast ~~~
TLDR, my reasoning below (largely in agreement with GRIN)
2+2 days seems to suffice every one, ok.
Here I see a lot of discussions. The numbers from ivangbi post are fine. Any one against-it? 0.015-0.30 looks to be supported by a few members, I don 't mind it very much. Ok?
Sell fee 25% as the fee start is enough, ok.
No more than 1 week for FairTrading, ok.
FairTrading fees go to LPs for 6 months duration.
Buy fee: no body seems to want care. Keep it at 0% = simpler logic?
I am observing consensus, glad. @ov3rkoalafied can report to me final numbers any time.
1) DAO capital
Suggest to purpose $ X K treasury regardless: either top up 0xcider (if < min) or in Balancer:
I suggest for the DAO to supply up to 400 ETH of its own assets (20% of 0xcider min) in $eth in case the min range is not hit. In case the min is hit, the DAO does not need to do anything. Practically speaking, financial multisig should pre-sign the transaction to be ready during the last blocks, and withdraw the difference later. That is ok?
In case 0xcider doesn 't need any capital (strictly = 0), DAO can make a GEAR/FRAXBP pool on Balancer (whatever asset the Balancer-Aura-Frax were offering the highest rewards for). This will strongen the relationship between DAO, and make liquidity deeper. More detailz:
2) Extra LM for LPs
ov3rkoalafied: I think the DAO could commit a small amount of GEAR for the first ~month.
Suggest doing it for 4 months (between 3 <> 6 in generalé) with open_end like the regular Liquidity Mining for passive suppliers. 1 month is too short, you will have to make a new program again soon after it. In the contrary, 4 months is enough for the market to stabilize and figure itself out. You can always vote and stop after ~2 months, easier rules.
1 month of extra LM from the DAO, at 10% APR (a bit low cuz there will also be APR from the cider’d fees) on let’s say $3m of liquidity would be 0.0167% of supply, or 1.6m gear tokens. NEW: 4 months of extra LM from the DAO, at 10% APR (a bit low cuz there will also be APR from the cider’d fees) on let’s say $3m of liquidity would be 0.0668% of supply, or 6.68m $gears. Ok?
Perhaps this is an argument to change to 30%->0% with 3-4 days instead of 7-14 days for the fair trading period. @0xcider any reason for the fair trading period to be 2 weeks, or even 1 week? IMO 1 week is the longest it should be, but 4 days maybe OK? gets the “delay” down a bit more too. Curious what if any reasons are against it. Obviously if you make it too short then no one gets to participate, but I feel like anywhere 4-7 days might be OK.
So the remaining action items to finalize cider’d:
finalize fee range [dao discussion]
finalize fairtrading as 7 days, or potentially less [dao discussion]
finalize 0% buy fee [dao discussion]
write and launch proposal for additional light LMing program
Items 1-3 maybe should go to vote as a “finalizing” proposal should cider’d pass, before it launches (and none of those really affect code or audit right? or would any of those need to be figured out before dec 5th?)
EDIT: If we do a “finalizing” proposal, then I think that would be a good place to also propose payment for cider’d for his dev work.
Who is taking care of it - Chainsecurity Start: Dec5. End: by the end of next week Dec11.
@ov3rkoalafied costs are to be within 16,000 USDC or less. Please include in final cider remarks.
I shall be sharing code with everyone by tomorrow evening, final commit. Anyone can look then.
While audit is ongoing, I will finish a simple interface for the 0xcider stages. You will not require an interface though, it will be either calling 1 function (for $gears holders) on Etherscan - or directly send $eths to the contract. Easiest interaction ever, boys&girls!
Monday Dec 12 is when multisig transactions can be prepared, while everyone is back to work. Should the audit find no major flaws, start of 0xcider can be scheduled as Dec13 Tuesday.
I will help instruct the multisig on what is needed, with the help of van0k if required.
This is manageable should there be no major flaws in code or multisig delays. Worst case scenario it would add a few days, but no more than a week. $gears shall all be liquid before end of Dec!
Early contributors are not able to claim their tokens before full transferability, because that would require vesting contracts to get “transferability” role. They are not getting it in my plan. No early member is able to take part in 0xcider, it 's only accessible to the community.
The point of the fee is to turn MEV into long-form selling/buying. Liquidity can have a race to both buy and sell. If we only have a fee for selling GEAR, does that not create some artificial imbalanced buy pressure? We aren’t trying to be ichi here, don’t want to create a stairs up elevator down effect. I’m still leaning towards keeping the buy fee. The main reason I can see to remove it is if we are worried about demand. Ie, stairs up elevator down could be a problem in a bull market but in this more depressed and potentially more rational market it may not be a problem?
If these are all configurable values at the DAO’s discretion I don’t see why we wouldn’t want to have minimal buy fees right? If we can set it to zero even better imo, the lower the barrier to entry for potential $GEAR holders the better imo.
@0xcider do you have a list of the proposed curve pool params?
One big diff between uni v3 and curve is fee for veCRV’ers. Curious what fee % is being used and what % will go to veCRV. In general my intent would be to imitate a uni v2 0.3% pool as closely as possible.