Signal proposal: granting Mesa Custom market makers creators dxDAO REP

Hello everyone,

I am propose to create dxDAO incentive and give Mesa custom market makers (CMM) set up owners lifetime possibility to ask 1000 dxDAO REP points per each CMM created according to this dashboard
https://explore.duneanalytics.com/dashboard/gp-passive-liquidity-provision-with-cmm-yield-farming-dashboard?p_w4270_deployment_id=108&fullscreen

At the time of writing this would be a maximum of new 20000 REP or aprx 1.6% of total REP.

DeFi create a lot of opportunities for LP and farming. Gnosis created incentive from Gnosis side and I think dxDAO should create incentive from dxDAO side. CMM is a powerful tool to make Gnosis protocol and Mesa widely using. dxDAO should take part to popularize CMM.

2 Likes

My proposal

2 Likes

@ykplayer8 why rushing into submitting a proposal without discussing it first here in the forum? I think it would be better to submit a signal proposal that affects the entire organization (we are talking about issuing 20k REP) once it is reviewed and well known by the community.

And yes, I agree with you that there should be an incentive program for market makers but I dont think that the incentive should be in ETH. Do they care about our governance? Are they going to vote and be active in the community? I dont think so.

What about having the incentive program with DXD?, we have plenty of it and I think it will be far more attractive to CMM than REP, in that case it will have my positive vote.

2 Likes

As a participant of CMM program on Mesa, I would be glad to participate in dxDAO governance. Incentives are important.

3 Likes

Thanks @AugustoL for your important feedback.

  1. I am not rushing my proposal. It is open for disscusion. Things are moving fast and in terms of the battle for Mesa LP dxDAO need to compete with other DeFi projects for LP capital. Tomorrow will start second round of Gnosis CMM program, so from my point of view dxDAO should spread the voice.
  2. Gnosis paying liquid asset - GNO for Mesa CMM owners. So it is better to offer something different. dxDAO keep ETH for fund salaries for software developers and dont distribute DXD yet from vesting contract. CMM owners are active people it will be greate to have them in dxDAO and I believe dxDAO should use any opportunity to bring new members.

Thanks for joining to this discussion. Nice to see you here. Let me introduce you to dxDAO community. @vvk is active member of Unofficial dxDAO russian and ukrainian telegram group. He started trading on Mesa during UAX program. In the end of June he set up UAX-DAI CMM and put his capital to GP (Mesa) contract on regular basis. He active taking part in every day discussion about dxDAO life and Mesa trading in telegram.

2 Likes

Hi @ykplayer8, thanks for proposing this. I think it’s an important initiative. DXdao needs to grow in membership and become more diversified and Mesa liquidity providers are an important part of the community. Ultimately, I would like to see an initiative like this pass, but would like to see this thoroughly discussed by the DXdao community first. I have some questions.

  1. Should there be a total cap on the amount of REP distributed? While it is perhaps unlikely, the amount given out could be far greater than 1.6% if the number of participants grows.

  2. Should the amount of REP given out be proportional or somehow related to the amount of liquidity and the length of time?

  3. Is there some things we can do to help limit the possibility that this gets sybil attacked by one person creating many accounts? Perhaps there are some ways to prove there are many active participants while still allowing people who want to be anonymous to stay anonymous.

  4. Should some tokens be targeted? And is there some way to understand how liquidity provisioning is helping trading? I think the goal with increased liquidity is actually to bring more volume.

  5. Omen and DXswap when it launches could also have liquidity providing incentives. Would it make sense to think about this as part of a bigger program and understand something like a REP budget for the whole program? It also might be worth considering whether DXdao can set up a “guild” (i.e. a sub-DAO) dedicated to Mesa with it’s own voting interface and reputation/voting power just for active Mesa community members.

1 Like

Actually I think you are if you create the proposal in Alchemy at the same time you start the discussion here in the forum. Proposals like these ones where the collective agree on a big issuance of REP should be discussed in the forum first and once you get enough people in the community backing it publicly that would be the time for creating the proposal, thats my opinion.

Because the idea is good but Im hesitant in voting for it being it presented like that, @JohnKelleher asked very good questions that should be answered before voting, also we are working on the technical level to distribute REP to smaller groups rather than directly to individuals, creating sub organizations for specific decisions it is healthier in the governance level, avoiding a unique individual hold too much rep in multiple accounts and making sybil REP attacks much harder.

Looking forward to see this discussed in next week calls :slight_smile:

I am linked my proposal to CMM program dashboard (first round). There are 20 CMM deployments from 8 owners. The first round end today. To be qualified to this dashboard the minimum capital per deployment is 10000 USD (5000 USD stable coin and 5000 USD ERC20 volatile token). I will be more than happy if we see situation when people starting CMM deployment with minimum 10000 USD capital paying more than 100-150 USD for gas for full circle to earn 1000 dxDAO REP. If dxDAO will see bad activity we can block new REP minting during claim REP proposal. At current moment dxDAO not agreed new REP rules and from the history perspective new 25% of REP were minted during this year for devs and gitcoin donors. I dont remember any cases for new mint REP for other groups. dxDAO need REP politics and I am 100% for this. To keep things easy I think it is better to sync dxDAO and Gnosis program rules. I dont see any issues with program rules developed by Gnosis. Also I want mention - my proposal is just for first round of CMM program and we have a lot of time develop and agreed other rules for future rounds.

One more time - I am not rushing a proposal. I remember times when any new dxDAO proposal was like holiday day. I am support discussion and transparency and I am against censorship and people who think that they are dxDAO bosses. I have made proposal and start topic in same time and dont see any issues with this. Holographic consensus works perfect and if my proposal is bad - my proposal is not passed. I hope if someone downstake my proposal or vote against he will offer better alternative.

2 Likes

Ah, so it seems then this proposal is only for the 20 existing deployments that were made during the first round of the Gnosis incentive program, right? The proposal as written in Alchemy is unclear to me as to whether it applies to any future CMM deployments that meet the same criteria.

I would be happy to welcome new members to DXdao such as @vvk who have participated in Mesa and to give them some REP.

This is true, but still far more REP was given to DutchX liquidity providers and token stakers from the initial staking period (900K, which even today represents 72% of REP). As we saw in the initial staking period, the DutchX volume did not last. So I think this is a lesson for DXdao that it should be careful with incentive programs. Again, I am 100% for balancing out REP distribution to different groups. Augusto and I and other devs are working to allow DXdao to include DXD holders in voting as well. Now that Mesa and Omen have launched, and soon DXswap, I think liquidity incentives are an important measure for DXdao to take. Hopefully we will soon have plans for Mesa, Omen, and DXswap and will achieve a more balanced REP distribution going forward.

Yes, right. Sorry from my side to be unclear.

This is my opinion to.

Someone downstake my proposal and I want to upgrade it with important addition. No more new 2000 REP for one owner address. The fist CMM round is finished and the numbers are clear now.

20 CMM deployments. 8 owners.
Lifetime possibility for 8 CMM owners ask dxDAO REP using same address or other verified address.
90d26c3805030a05c7fdd89326a4a2a99cbade31 - 1000 REP points
399c7819840329e2b73449d6afcf7f4fd71399b2 - 1000 REP points
274df99cf90c55f18f079f482750d03209b02f92 - 1000 REP points
66ca70f1a348bdc66bb201e09eae4009d1d1e7e8 - 2000 REP points
265b27ab17bb30c4148563cadb7bafc04a7c4b39 - 2000 REP points
01a83b17005a7eda0a498041c4ba1c55cbd663b7 - 1000 REP points
3a11f4c84688a1264690d696d8d807a25ee02dd2 - 1000 REP points
d54010feda3119deacef4f71ddbc0f094691c357 - 2000 REP points

Total - 11000 REP points or aprx 0.88% of total REP for 8 owners

Looking for community feedback

P.S. I am control one of address.

1 Like

Hey @ykplayer8
As discussed on Keybase, I’m not sure about the effectiveness of distributing REP to LPs for two reasons:

  1. I’m not sure the wider LP community on Ethereum (farmers…) will find it financially attractive
  2. There is no way to know if those addresses are one or many individuals and more importantly if they will contribute to DXdao governance.

Having said that, I think the DXdao should have many small scale experiments as nobody really knows how it will play out and the goal is to broaden the community.
So all in all I’m in favor of this as a one time experiment.
Looking forward to see how it plays out

3 Likes
  • for incentive program with DXD

Update after keybase discussion. Some of owners of CMM already hold more than 4% of dxDAO REP and as a respect for the currently set max limit of 4% REP per address (owner) they can`t request any more REP. Using workers guideline logic those owners may be compensated with DXD.

Lifetime possibility for 8 CMM owners ask dxDAO REP using same address or other verified address.
90d26c3805030a05c7fdd89326a4a2a99cbade31 - 1000 REP points
399c7819840329e2b73449d6afcf7f4fd71399b2 - 0 REP points - 1000 REP compensation in DXD
274df99cf90c55f18f079f482750d03209b02f92 - 0 REP points - 1000 REP compensation in DXD
66ca70f1a348bdc66bb201e09eae4009d1d1e7e8 - 0 REP points - 2000 REP compensation in DXD
265b27ab17bb30c4148563cadb7bafc04a7c4b39 - 2000 REP points
01a83b17005a7eda0a498041c4ba1c55cbd663b7 - 1000 REP points
3a11f4c84688a1264690d696d8d807a25ee02dd2 - 1000 REP points
d54010feda3119deacef4f71ddbc0f094691c357 - 2000 REP points

Total - 7000 new REP points or aprx 0.56% of total REP for 5 owners and 4000 REP points compensation in DXD for 3 owners using worker guideline logic.

1 Like