Author(s): Álvaro Montes, José Segura, Virginnis - Hbar Trading Bot AI
SaucerSwap Voting Interface: na
Related Discussions: Create V2 Pool for HBAR/HTAI 0.30%
Submission Date: September 11th, 2024
Summary
We propose the creation of a V2_HBAR/HTAI pool with a 0.30% fee tier on SaucerSwap. This pool will enhance capital efficiency, increase TVL, and liquidity for both SaucerSwap and Hedera.
Abstract
The new V2_HBAR/HTAI pool will utilize SaucerSwap V2’s concentrated liquidity features, offering better returns for LPs, increased liquidity, and TVL.
Motivation
To deploy concentrated liquidity, increase both TVL and liquidity for HBAR/HTAI. In addition,this supports the growth of SaucerSwap and Hedera.
Benefits (Pros)
- Price Supportive: It can help stabilize token prices.
- Capital Efficient: Concentrated liquidity pools are more efficient in capital deployment.
- Yield Opportunities: Increase yield opportunities for liquidity providers.
- Minimal Slippage: Concentrated pools help to ensure minimal slippage and tighterspreads.
Downside (Cons)
- Risks: Smart contract risk, increased complexity, management overhead, and potentialuser education challenges
Voting
- For: Create the V2_HBAR/HTAI pool with a 0.30% fee.
- Against: Request revisions for further refinement.
2 Likes
It probably doesn’t bode too well if there hasn’t been any engagement with this post in the 3 days it’s been up. Not to mention keeping the the same error and typos as this post. and being inconsistent of what symbol to use for the decimal separator.
I do wish this post and the previous one linked expound more on the risk rather than just listing them, in similar fashion to the benefits list.
risks? Could you list what risks? Has our project been studied? or is it criticizing for the sake of criticizing? We are a Spanish team of 3 people, sorry for the mistakes.
What is clear is that as a saucer who follows the same philosophy as you, you are doomed to failure.
https://gov.saucerswap.finance/guidelines
Respectfully, I have not said any member of your team are doomed to failure, nor have said this project is doomed to failure, nor have I said this Request for Comment towards a proposal is doomed to failure. Just because there’s lack of engagement now doesn’t mean there won’t be any effort to engage with the community so this proposal would have the best chance for success.
In the initial post on this thread, you’ve written down the risks. What I have asked is just to expand into more detail similar to Benefits (Pros) list. Which I should had asked the Earthlings.land team to do the same as well, but the time passed their proposals is already in the election phase right now. Still, it’s always a good time to learn from previous missteps.
I have not made any specific mention of the project itself, nor really talked about the projects themselves in the HBAR/HCHF v2 proposal or the SAUCE/GRELF farm weight changes proposal. The closest to talking about a specific project is on allocating DAO treasury for Bonzo Finance but even then it more general (e.i. synergies and performances of DEX and lending protocols, not specific to Bonzo itself). So whether or not I have studied the HBAR Trading Bot project is independent of the current proposal of creating a V2 pool.
For V2 pool creation proposals in general, I would like to ask about the fee tier choice, just so the community know the team has thought about it. I figured the team has consider liquidity fragmentation issues beforehand, so I usually don’t ask about that.
No.
No one is faulting the team’s primary language or the size. Heck, I barely speak 0.8 of a language. I just thought this community would like to help correct errors for the benefit of others. I do know others have even corrected errors made by the SaucerSwap Core team in their Documentation or articles from time to time. But whether it’s the Core team or community members correcting others to fix graphics, tweets, articles, videos, etc., it is appreciated when they learn from it and fix issues if and when possible.
I do appreciate the relative quick response time.
We believe you should study the project we are working on, offer staking for certain tokens with an APR of up to 35%, and most importantly, allow buy and sell orders at a set price for all HTS tokens on the Hedera network.
We want to incentivize and reward everyone who contributes liquidity to our pool, as it currently only generates 4%, and we aim to offer more rewards. V2 could help us with this.
Instead of discussing how to fill out the form, the focus should be on the project and the benefits of transitioning to V2.
And add that the team is here to resolve any questions, and thus obtain clarity so that they approve the V2 pool.
Good for you for advertising. Maybe advertising yourself more and linking to the RFC of a proposal would whip up some engagement, so it would have the best opportunity to pass. I just focus project-agnostic reasons (unless I have absolute reason to believe a project is a scam) and project-agnostic metrics.
It would still be a good impression to have a the best outline possible. It would show the team does care enough to look nice and shows the team did put some thought into it. It would just be a bad precedent to set to future proposals just copy previous proposals templates with all the mistakes, with the only minor edits being the project name change.
And the risks too. You did write “management overhead” of the SaucerSwap platform, which includes the cost associated to data storage for any Pool. Between management overhead and liquidity fragmentation (another risk), it would be project-agnostic reasons to consider against approving a V2 pool.
You could emphasize this more in the initial post. LARI rewards mechanism does allow other HTS tokens besides SAUCE to be offered. It would be offer more clarity for users. It would help make a stronger case for approval.
Still no.
Just a re-reminder for those with potential proposals to mind the guidelines.