Omen - Version 2

Hey everyone,

While designing and developing Omen Version 1, I realised that there are several improvements which can be made to improve the user experience. I also want to introduce features which could increase the usability and may enable the collective to generate revenue in the coming months.

UI/UX Improvements

Introducing the new market details view

One of the main issues with V1 is that users don`t have an overview of a market life cycle. Omen´s market life cycle starts with the creation of the market and with that the trading starts. After the defined resolution date it transitions to the market finalization where realit.io defines the correct outcome of a market. Once realit.io finalizes the correct outcome the market transitions into the closed state. Anyone can call an arbitrator for a fee which will set the correct outcome. With the new market state progressbar the user will always know the start, the current state of the market and when it will close. It will also indicate if an arbitrator has been called. With that, Omen will be more transparent and clear which results in an improved user experience.

Links :
Figma Playground
Figma Design Specification

Integrating the realit.io service into Omen.eth

Realit.io is used to set outcomes for Omen markets and also to invoke arbitration. In Omen Version 1 users are simply redirected to realit.io for these interactions. With a frontend integration with realit.io in Omen Version 2, users will be able to interact with realit.io directly via the Omen.eth app.With the integration of realit.io omen users can participate in setting an outcome of a market by staking Ether. With that, traders and liquidity providers can set the correct outcome and call the arbitrator without leaving Omen.eth. This will improve the user experience.

Links :
Figma Playground
Figma Design Specification

The new category & market state picker

The current category picker was designed with the knowledge that the amount of categories are fixed. It turns out realit.io is capable to work with any type of market. With that Omen V2 will allow users to define their own category on market creation and introduces a new dropdown which enables the UI to scale and replaces the current horizontal category picker.

With the introduction of the new category picker we take the chance to get the market state picker closer to the category picker as they are strongly connected. When picking a category, the market state picker will dynamically get updated to show the total number of open markets. The new market state picker will keep the current states (Market Open, Market Pending, Market Closed, My Markets).

Links :
Figma Playground
Figma Design Specification
Github issue

A more polished Markets Overview widget

With replacing the vertical navigation for the category and market state with dropdowns which will move outside of the main widget, we can clean up the markets widget which keeps the search and filter options. Overall the new markets widget will get a more polished look by replacing the “top outcome indicator” with our star icon which should be established as the indicator for potential winning outcome and the actual winning outcome.

Links:
Figma Playground
Figma Design Specification
Github issue

Potential Features

Introducing a trading fee

By leveraging the gnosis safe proxy kit we can integrate a fee through the omen dapp. Everytime an omen user is buying or selling an outcome we could take a small fee (0.025%).

Allowing Liquidity Providers to earn interest

By leveraging the gnosis proxy kit, we can enable liquidity providers to seamlessly earn interest powered by interest bearing DAI tokens like CHAI or cDAI. The DXdao could govern which interest bearing DAI version should be used or market creators can decide for themself. With that, users with any DAI version could participate on any DAI version markets without the hassle to manually exchange it. This will improve the user experience for liquidity providers.

Introducing a fee token for cDAI

Similar to Dharma, the DXdao collective could decide to deploy their own dxDAI token which would be a fee token for the interest bearing cDAI token. With that, the DXdao could generate revenue by taking a cut (10% of the interest earned in the liquidity pool) of all markets which are using interest bearing assets as a collateral token.

Integrating Gnosis Protocol

By integrating the Gnosis Protocol users who don`t have a specific ERC-20 token could exchange it to the collateral token used in the prediction market. Users would need to wait min. 10 minutes but it would provide a safe and potentially fair exchange.

Integrating DXswap

With the integration of DXswap, Omen can enable market creation, betting and liquidity provision without actually having the specific collateral token. We can leverage the Gnosis Proxy Kit to batch an Omen transaction with the DXswap exchange into one ethereum transaction. With that, users can use Omen without thinking about exchanging tokens.

What do you think about the UI/UX improvements and the potential features? Which features should the collective prioritise?

6 Likes

Really awesome overview. I would focus on the top 1 and Gnosis protocol. My thinking is products having fees is pretty expected and commonplace. The fee should probably be higher. My suggestion is .05-.1%, and potentially deducting it from the 2% trading fee so that it’s still a clean 2%.

Interest earning for LP’s could have a lot more potential than we think. So I guess these 3 are top priorities imo.

4 Likes

Visually, I think a night-mode would be really nice.

5 Likes

Thank you for the feedback. Will come!

2 Likes

This is a whole higher level versus v1. Nice job!

1 Like

I like all the suggested changes. Each one makes the product clearer and easier to use. Good job.

Is there a way to sort/show only markets that are in a certain stage (open, finalizing, closed)? Not super important, just curious.

1 Like

Nice, the new UI looks better that the current one.

For those interested here is a doc with user feedback we’ve gathered.

I would avoid taking fees for now. The first users are the ones taking the highest risk and we want to be as attractive as possible initially. Once Omen is well renowned prediction markets we can start thinking about fees.

Another idea I got for fees would be to sell the spot markets are displayed through a self assessed property tax (Harberger tax like what was used for ethtrader banner).
Basically liquidity providers (LP) could pay the dxDAO to have their market displayed on top. The markets would be displayed in the order of the daily amount paid for a market (like if someone pay 10$ per day for market A and someone 100$ per day for market B, markets would be displayed in the B,A order).
The interest of this is that instead of reducing user experience (increasing the fee they pay or decreasing liquidity in case of adding a fee), it would improve it put putting the markets LP think are the most likely to be traded on top (because LP earn on the trading, and it would only be worth it to pay to be on top for the markets which are gonna lead to a lot of trading).

3 Likes

@corkus @clesaege I love the fact that improvements are already planned for Omen before it even launched!
I tend to agree that fees should probably not be implemented for quite a while. It’s not worth having fees (monetarily) until it’s a much larger ecosystem. You can always put in fees later.
As for the Harberger idea, it’s a great idea and I love thinking of more ways Harberger tax can be applied in real life.
Currently, I am having a very hard time trying to figure out what type of return Liquidity Providers are making. Do others have a good handle on this? Until this is very clear and easy for a Liquidity Provider, I don’t think they are going to pay to increase volumes. Once platforms exist that make these numbers more transparent, I could think of lots of new ideas.
This also seems like a cool (new Web3 world) idea that would make sense to experiment with when the Omen ecosystem is further along and more mature.

3 Likes

The concept of lifecycle and the progress bar does the job in encouraging more activity around lifecycle events like market resolution and potential arbitration.

Is there a way that the 24-hour window of setting an outcome can be given precedence? Perhaps the time remaining can be used to stress the closing window on setting an outcome?

Some questions regarding the design:

How would disputing set outcome look like?
How would it look to start the arbitration process in the UI?

The new search widget looks great. Something needs clarity, does my markets mean markets I created or markets I have a position in?

Regarding the features, personally, without consistent trading volumes, I think it’s too early to set fees.

In my mind’s eye the there are two complementary roles which need to be optimized for Omen’s success. Liquidity provision and trading. Any of us who have used an order book on a prediction market knows how much better the AMM experience is (would love the opposite take on this). I’m willing to bet that if a super liquid market exists with great UI and trust in the market resolution process, it will attract traders.

For the user to have that experience we need liquidity providers. Personally, my belief is that is the priority.

From my experience providing liquidity on Omen is very difficult. There features that could help with this for example:

-> Automatically withdrawing liquidity if the market moves above a certain threshold
-> Automatically withdrawing liquidity at a specific time
-> increasing return from placing LP in interest-bearing assets

But ultimately I want to make money as an LP and in the age of SUSHI and everything else, I’m not sure if the juice is worth the squeeze. I have personally experienced this risk when markets move in one direction. That was my fault as I was providing liquidity to markets whereby certainty comes clearer over time leading to the odds becoming more and more certain. If I provided liquidity to markets that had little certainty before an event I could earn via liquidity provision and withdraw as the event is about to start. This goes in the direction of sports betting or political betting.

The above leads me to these questions:

-> What would Omen look like if it was focused purely on markets with high degrees of uncertainty right before an event? I.e markets with high return and low LP risk.

-> What if markets could be organized or searched by LP returns and risk?

-> What if liquidity provisioned earned governance tokens in Omen?

-> What if the DxDAO did a fair launch of Omen V2 with yield farming to compete with Augur….

1 Like