Wiggle and dance is on the table if we can get this temp check to the finish line! The goal is to get the DAO to take this proposal seriously and we do that by getting the vote count up. Crossing fingers more people get engaged in this temp check!
Absolutely, this proposal is neccesary.
Viddie i do have a question
For clarication, the proposal was for every swap conducted yes?
I believe so.
If thats the case man, a smaller fee would bring great benefit from a profit standpoint.
The traffic on sundae is only going to get larger and larger…
If anything, start low and climb.
For everyonelse i ask, are you guys against the proposal itself? Or the 2.5ADA?
Feedback on that is 1 hell of a start
I like the idea but I think it needs more discussion. I would love a way to make passive income that better offsets my risk of impermanent loss. As it stands the current volume is not enough given the current fees to offset that risk. However, I do not think this proposal at this point in time is the best way to fix that. Percentage fees incentivize liquidity providers. The incentive for becoming a liquidity provider will be diminished greatly if people can just hold the token and receive passive income without having to risk any impermanent loss.
I’m not against introducing passive income for voters/token holders, however that brings us into securities territory so be prepared to pay a bribe/fine to the SEC.
However right now I believe that a more pressing priority would be to increase the percentage rewards for liquidity providers until more volume comes to Cardano and SundaeSwap.
Also, I would much rather hold onto my sundae tokens in my own wallet, rather than have everyone stake them at one central point of hack/failure. Is it possible to come up with a way to stake coins in our own wallets?
Objectively, the platform can survive without the early token holders. If they want to sell, someone else will buy. However, the platform can not survive without liquidity providers or customers. This proposal would most likely result, at this point in time, in decreased volume which means less rewards for liquidity providers. I think we should revisit this idea in the future when the volume is much healthier and more sustainable.
Yes, I like this idea too, but I believe it needs more work and discussion, so I am voting no for now.
You chose a price based on the opportunity cost of holding Sundae vs holding ADA. For example 2.5 is nice because at that rate one would have to own 50,000 sundae to make $500 a month, given 0.01 ada per token. That’s a lot of Sundae you would have to own, however I think it’s worth the passive income. I would even buy 50k sundae for half that income. But lower than that and I would rather just hold ada and collect my normal staking rewards. That’s without taking into account the voting power.
We should not introduce something that worsens user experience. Period.
It does not mean we should not think about utility. Decision rights is one. Secondly, i think SundaeSwap can think of something extra that SS holders can get vs non-holders (e.g. unlocking higher yields, less commission on swaps, i.e. some additional benefits/perks otherwise not accessible).
The declining price of the Platform token is the worst user experience you could possible imagine. The vast majority of sundaeswap users are sundae holders, and the first experience for most users on the DEX is buying the Sundae token. If the price of the token proceeds to bottom out, they are going to be resentful and leave. Additionally, if we don’t implement profit sharing, then everyone will move to the first dex which does.
If other DEXs on Cardano have profit-sharing rewards for platform tokens, everyone will 100% move there.
From a customer perspective, everyone will move to DEXs where the platform token has a profit-sharing mechanism…
Okay so… hold on a sec. One major misunderstanding.
And viddie … correct me if im wrong.
By no means is this proposal pointless giving rewards to anyone with sundae…
Ofcourse you would stake your sundae man.
My apologies, by abolutely NO means would i encourage something so low IQ
“The only sundae holders that get rewarded [obviously] are locked into sc”
Just like they are now…
And i 100% agree with this guy
Is that why everyone voted no?
Did you guys seriously think the proposal
Was to give rewards to just any sundae holder?
I really hope not, that is so dense and discouraging
Again… user must STAKE their sundae
No one said the price decline is a good experience… has one? Please be careful otherwise you can be caught in substituting the terms and making false assumptions.
I think majority would agree that there should be demand reason for SS token. It is clear. Increasing the cost of transaction to increase profits for holders is not that majority (incl. me) agrees with. By Users I meant users of SS. Not holders of SS. I suggested alternative ways (besides decision rights in DAO) to support demand (i.e. unlocking additional features/benefits for DEX users which are not accessible to those who does not hold SS). As for sharing the profits - yes, this can work too but we should rather agree on this within the existing commission rates so swappers do not have hit on their pockets. Moreover i think that profit should be paid out not in SS (otherwise it is a snake biting its own tail) but in the tokens which were involved in the trade.
the proposal is to increase the cost of swaps
I for one never mentioned price / personally i dont care about the $ sign
[Comes with the territory] up down up down etc
However, yes this proposal is actually great
Minus the 2.5ADA …
That their in my opinion is astronomical
[Yes i know its a flat fee]
Im simply saying, take this exact proposal
And make it .3 .05 etc you get it
2.5a is a no go
In closing, idealy the proccess would be no different than farming is right now…
Litterally no different.
Keep in mind, the motivation for this proposal is the expiration of the “current” farming ending
“We should not introduce something that worsens user experience. Period.
It does not mean we should not think about utility. Decision rights is one. Secondly, i think SundaeSwap can think of something extra that SS holders can get vs non-holders (e.g. unlocking higher yields, less commission on swaps, i.e. some additional benefits/perks otherwise not accessible).”
My point was regarding this. You explicitly stated we shouldn’t introduce something that worsens user experience. However, users are already having the worst experience possible as the vast majority of users first experience interacting with the DEX was buying the platform token. If the platform token proceeds to plummet in price, then they are going to resent the DEX. Additional features such as DAO voting power, and reduced fees are simply not sufficient. If you look at other DEXs on other blockchains you will see this is the case. Everyone moves to the projects with profit-sharing for the project token holders. Profit-sharing would be paid out in ADA to SS holders, regardless of how you achieve this, it needs to be done for this DEX to have any chance in this ecosystem. Especially since competing DEXs such as Minswap already have profit-sharing, and MuesliSwap has profit-sharing with a buy-back / burn mechanism.
Users aren’t going to wait for the price to correct from the utility derived from on-chain voting. Instead, they will see their investment go down, spam twitter about how the platform is a rug pull, and move on to a platform that has profit-sharing implemented off the bat. Just look at the current situation with VVS finance and MM finance. All the liquidity is flooding out of VVS finance into MM finance, because MM finance has profit-sharing and VVS finance does not.
Agree with that (along with other utilities). I do not consider holding SS tokens as user experience, i consider using DEX services as user experience (which is not the same necessarily) thus the misunderstanding. Anyways, I thought of using the current commission rates to share profits with holders (stakers). Increasing existing commission → worsened DEX user experience. Maybe minor increase of the commission might be a solution if the current commission does not provide at least 4-5% APR (i do not know if flat or % - i think this should be modelled based on the current / projected DEX user behaviour patterns/trends)
If it does not provide atleast 10% nobody will be here lol.
Good news, i doubt apr’s reguardless of future solution will be less than 10%
the higher APR the lesser price of the token (sell pressure)
I liked the proposal, but I don’t agree with the current rate (2.5)…
We shouldn’t just think about sundae holders, but think about users as a whole…
The scooper fee is already high, increasing one more fee in the same portion can cause it to dig and scare users looking for other dex with lower fees.
so my suggestion is that the rate be from 0.5 ADA to 0.75.
where we can attract more users with the news that sundae holders are rewarded and the platform fee is not salty. if so, we may have an increase in swaps/month
Percentage fees incentivize liquidity providers. The incentive for becoming a liquidity provider will be diminished greatly if people can just hold the token and receive passive income without having to risk any impermanent loss.
I actually think the opposite will happen. I think liquidity providers will see this as an opportunity to propose to the DAO Sundae yield farming to their liquidity pools. The DAO could then vote to approve that if it really likes the pool’s project.
This is a pretty compelling argument. Maybe a fee of .3-.5 ada per swap can help generate some passive yield for SS holders, but in my opinion, this is still dangerous waters, its just less dangerous and more considerable than 2.5 ada.