Thoughts and Ideas for dxDAO Proposals

dxDAO
#1

Even though the governance phase of the dxDAO is only expected to begin in mid-July, it would be great to get a conversation going around which proposals we would like to see passed.

What are your thoughts? No ideas are bad ideas :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes
#2

TCR for tokens whitelisted on DutchX

3 Likes
#3

New user interface for DutchX supporting limit orders, displaying historical auction data, etc.

3 Likes
#4

A few more questions:

  • how can the dxDAO increase trading volume on the dutchX
  • should it change the fee mechanism
  • should the dxDAO allocate further reputation - to whom? With what goal?
  • how should the dxDAO allocate the 2% reputation for “story telling”?
  • should the dxDAO try to raise money - if so, how?

https://pad.riseup.net/p/7hhXAiyzPMQGACK82KbM-keep

2 Likes
#5

From TG chat:

  • curated list of tokens (e.g. there are 10+ tokens on Ethereum called GNO but only 1 token is the “real” GNO)
  • IPFS interfaces for the different dAPPs out there
  • conflict resolutaiton for ENS: currently somone else controlls gnosispm.eth - I think for clear brand names it makes a lot of sense if the entity of the brand actually controlles the ENS entry
  • the dxDAO could curate a list of trusted smart contracts where a translation between the tx daata to human readable information about what you are doing exists
2 Likes
#6

Also from TG chat:

“I believe one of the first tasks the dao should fund is documentation and even tools for future market makers.” -@stink3finger

3 Likes
#7

From @koeppelmann:

“currently the dutchX holds $1.2M worth of tokens.
https://etherscan.io/address/0xb9812e2fa995ec53b5b6df34d21f9304762c5497
The contract could be changed in a way that those tokens are lend out on compound and the dxDAO accures the interest…”

2 Likes
#8

Use Raiden Network (similar to Lightning Network but for Ethereum) to accelerate Eth and token transfers on the DEX.

One of the disadvantages of DEX’s is that it’s slow; Raiden state channels will make it fast. Transfers are made immediately.

1 Like
#9

Hi all

First some words about me:

I am crypto freak since 2011. I follow ethereum since pre mainnet. I took part in THE DAO and did take part in some ICO. Since last year I tried almost every “mainstream” defi on ethereum. I am a trained artist but work as a web developer and have a small web agency. I live in Zurich.

Thoughts
I think we need like a brand strategy. Its quit confusing that two different interface and even “brands” exists. Also they look quite different. I know they do different things, but outsiders do not care.

Also my question is whats dxDAO owns? the duchtx protocol, but who is owner of fairdex.net and slow.trade?

Generaly speaking I would like to see more KISS, (Keep it simple stupid) also on the duchtx. Now there are too many token involved. OWL I am looking at you! :sunglasses:

2 Likes
#10

@martinkrung

So the dxDAO “owns” the dutchX. (the set of smart contracts). Slow.trade and fairdex are owned by different entities and will continuously be so. However - both DAPPs are open source and it would be fairly easy for the dxDAO to fork the frontend and deploy its own version on IPFS.

1 Like
#11

From telegram:

John W:
x. DutchX has never had any real user adoption. Beside Gnosis DAI sales, most of the volume thus far has been bots trading against one another. Every effort has to be directed in promoting and advertising the DutchX, to bring in new users and liquidity that comes with that.

  1. Remove MGN token functionality. Rationale: current MGN generation rules incentivizes wash trading, MGN can easily be generated by trading against one self, therefore its meaning in providing discounts for market makers and frequent traders is moot.

  2. By removing MGN, the fee would be 0.5% for everyone. No discounts. Maybe the fee could be lowered, Uniswap has 0.3%. Part of this fee would go into dxDao treasury. I’d say a third not more (0.1%). This addresses the fund raising problem and incentivises dao to bring in real users.

  3. Remove ability to pay half of fees in OWL token. Fees paid in OWL are money lost for the dao. There is no sense in DutchX being tied to OWL generation which is tied into GNO token.

  4. Build prettier web inferaces, current ones are a bit lacking. Priority is selling side (aka slow.trade), buying side (fairdex) later.

#12

Martin from TG chat:

create a longer term incentive to eran MGN (=provide liqudity) again - by e.g. promising another (20%?) reputation for MGN holders in 6(?) month. To discurage pure washtrading (and increase interest in Rreputation) and 0.1% fee could be added that could go to the dxDAO.