Do you actually hold any VRJAM tokens?
1 Like
No quite the opposite actually. So please do not put words in my mouth. This achieves nothing.
1 Like
Iām glad we are in agreement with addressing the concerns in the open. Sam did mention all public support, so it would be fair to ask about them.
Yes or No. Actually, the answer wouldnāt matter. My holdings would not bear any meaning to the discussion of the proposal or the project at hand.
Do be mindful of the forums guidelines.
Dear H-Barbara:
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and comments; we truly appreciate the time and effort youāve put into expressing them. However, it seems that the discussion is veering away from the primary reason weāre here, which is to focus on the proposal to move to v2 pools.
While we need to take everyoneās responses, ideas, and comments here into consideration as we move to v2 pools, itās also important to stay on topic to ensure a productive discussion. To address your specific questions or concerns, I kindly ask that you take them to our Telegram group or feel free to DM me directly there. Iāll be happy to provide the answers and continue the conversation in more detail.
Thanks for your understanding!
1 Like
The V2 pool will be initialized with a substantial amount of project owned liquidity and / or liquidity from LPs associated with the project / token issuer. Liquidity in the V1 pool will then be migrated to the V2 pool in an orderly manner following V2 pool launch and we will communicate with our community members to request they do the same to ensure a smooth transition from V1 to V2 to avoid liquidity fragmentation as best we can.
Respectfully, itās a rather disappointing response. At the bare minimum, Iāve anticipated an answer to the SaucerSwap statement, given this is a SaucerSwap forum.
To be a bit more pedantic, a discussion for a proposal to create a permissioned V2 Liquidity Pool on the SaucerSwap platform. The discussions on the proposals themselves do basically break down very simply.
First, the outline itself. Just show us youāve done a bit more than the bare minimum of just copying a template, or just taking a previous proposal submission and changing a few words. Weāre not expecting a master thesis, but a bit of extra care.
Then the substative issues. Fees tiers. Primarily the thoughts and reasoning on why the fee tier was choosen. I was looking forward to seeing that discussion here.
Data costs and technical overhead. It is more of a platform concern, and so far it hasnāt been a pressing issue to serious consider slowing down approvals of new pools just yet.
Liquidity fragmentation and liquidity migration plans. It would be terrible if all the technical work goes into the creation of a new Liquidity Pool, but it becomes ineffective from liquidity concerns. Not expecting a detailed plan and minute by minute timeline, but it would be more reassuring for both the SaucerSwap community and the token proposers community that thought was put into it.
Then the rubber hits the road. Submitting the proposals and getting it passed. We could endlessly talk on the abstract of the proposal details, but at the end of the day, the aim is ideally making said proposal pass. I was hoping having an open dialog would help mend bridges and change community sentiment more positive, thereby increasing a proposalās chance to succeed.
I do wish youāve continued the conversation to me on the topics and issues Iāve brought up. This forum does have a DM feature. You did mention Telegram, but even if ultimately I were convinced on intentions, itās going to be another name on the list of names, which is what I wanted to avoid DMs in the first place. I donāt suppose youād be interested in making a Reddit post on r/Hedera on the manner. Itās open the the public to see, as in you wouldnāt need an account to see it. Outreach to a nice chunk of people that overlaps different communities. Moderators that can enforce decorum rules.
All this said, I would remain cordial if thereās any specific issues. Not sure who controls the VRJAM Discord account, but they did joined the SaucerSwap Discord server for help. Unfortunately, a bot scammer got to reply first and tried a āsupport by DMā scam. I did reply shortly afterwards saying it wasnāt real support and directed them to actual support on the server.
Hi, I see the rfc was turned into proposal without a response to my fee tier question. As both an early supporter to headstarter and saucer swap, Iām disappointed by the lack of transparency. Sam explicitly responded I would receive a response but none was offered. This all time hbar to vrjam chart to me shows a high likelihood of impermanent loss to LPS with the hbar to vrjam ratio ranging from .075 to .011. I normally am a proponent for V2 pools, and came to this rfc with an open mind about the fee tier. However in Web3, community is essential, and I donāt feel this proposals fee tier protects the Saucer Swap community LP providers sufficiently.
The unpredictable price movement of a highly volatile pair is more visible on the monthly chart ranging from a high of .015 down .008 hbar to vrjam.
Our team reached out to you on Discord as I said they would to ask for more information about your proposal, I personally ensured that the message was sent in a timely manner.
The principal reason for the price volatility of our token is the low liquidity depth in our pool. Solving this problem is one of the main reasons for our need to launch a V2 pool. Immediately following the launch of the V2 pool new LPs will enter the market and deepen liquidity substantially, this fact was clearly mentioned in our RFC and our proposal.
Our LPs are not willing to invest in a V1 pool due to the fact that concentrated liquidity technology is not available in V1, and the downside risk that this produces is unacceptable for them.
If you consider the actual trading volume that has been produced via our chart to date and then re-calculate the price performance subject to (for instance) 5x deeper liquidity in the pool, the price movement ceases to be highly volatile. Again, producing this outcome. ie. a rapid drop in price volatility via the deployment of additional liquidity is key to our motivation for our proposal. Please feel free to reply to our message on Discord at your earliest convenience so we can discuss your proposal. Following this we may decide to launch an additional pool with a higher reward percentage in addition to the pool that we propose to launch via our proposal. I hope this answers your questions and satisfies your concerns.
Hi Sam, is this to me? I donāt see anything in my discord messages or in the vrjam headstarter channelā¦but itās probably best to respond in this forum anyway. Where do I find that message?
Appreciate the response about the fee tier. At the end of the day there is probably some wiggle room about which fee tier is best and some of the recent pools did get approved at that level. So Iām mostly looking for clarification about how and why this level was chosen.
What kind of depth will AIJam provide to this pool? The rest of the depth will be market driven by lps who feel itās worth their whileā¦so if price stability is a key driver, then the 1% tier will be most attractive to lps.
Thanks,
Hi Saucerswap Community,
I retract statements in two posts above that the AIJam team didnāt reach out to me to discuss. I just donāt use discord well and there were friend requests to discuss that I did not see. Apologies to the AIJam team.