Do you have some empirical numbers to show that this is the case, or is this an assumption? Where can I look to see how many users of SundaeSwap hold tokens? I don’t know if this assumption holds true. It is clear to me that this proposal benefits token holders, but increases the costs for all users.
I don’t assume that increasing the costs will “worsen” the experience either. I think that a flat fee will have benefits as well. For example it may eliminate small transactions which will reduce traffic on the network. Would smaller investors just buy bigger volumes or would they go elsewhere? How much volume would the platform lose if they went elsewhere? I personally think that the platform needs a lot more traffic before it can turn away smaller investors. This is not a good tactic at this time, maybe latter.
For this to work at all the fee has to equate to more that what you would get from just staking the equivalent amount of ada. I don’t know how much that would be.
That being said, perhaps we can hold of on this until after hydra, when we won’t need a scooper fee, and just use that to pay token holders without needing to raise any costs.
Yes, the empirical evidence is in the ledger. If you look at Token SUNDAE - Cardanoscan you can see the transactions, and that at the very least there are 20,650 unique wallets that hold the sundae token.
The fee in this proposal is not set in stone, the parameters are totally open for voting once this passes the temperature check. The purpose of this temperature check is just to see if there is enough interest in this type of profit-sharing mechanism. The exact fee to be added, is totally up for debate and will be decided later in the voting process. If you are worried about turning away smaller investors, you can vote for a percentage fee with a capped total fee. Like a 0.5%-1% fee that is capped at 2.5 ADA. This way small investors don’t get killed by the fee.
So, here is why that wont work. The more yield farming you have, the more the token circulating supply is deluded, and price goes down. I would immediately pull all my value out of the liquidity pools and buy the tokens up as they get cheaper and just get passive income without risk of impermanent loss. Especially at 0.01 ada per token. With a $3 ada I could retire off of that.
It may cause a negative feedback loop where the people remove liquidity to collect token rewards instead, which would diminish the pools causing huge slippage, which would reduce volume, which would further disincentivize people from providing liquidity, so more people just buy the token instead… until there are no liquidity pools and no one to pay the flat fee either. It would amount to a pyramid scheme where those who amassed more Sundae first would benefit for a while until the system implodes.
I know it’s none of my business, but I’m curious how many Sundae tokens are owned by the loudest proponents of this plan. I bet it’s a whole lot more than most people. If I had a whole lot more Sundae tokens, I would surely vote yes, because it would be in my best self interest. But as it stands, right now, like most other people, it’s in my best interest to have a sustainable SundaeSwap instead.
Again, I’m not saying that this can’t ever work. But we need a sustainable volume first, then we can finagle with the fee amount, making sure that it’s enough to make it worth while, but not too much to discourage people from providing liquidity. The reward for providing liquidity needs to improve drastically before we can consider a proposal like this.
Liquidity providers and users come first before token holders, or else there is no DEX.
How did you came up with the figure of “at the very least 20,650 unique wallets”? I don’t see that anywhere on the explorer. Also I don’t see where it tells me how many unique people are using SundaeSwap.
Hello, I think the truth is on both sides - yes and no. However, I think it is very important for the SS to be the most used platform, which is mainly due to low fees.
In my opinion, high fees will kill this project.
The ADA has also been evolving for a long time and I believe in its future and this is how I perceive (I want to perceive) the SS.
That is why I voted against.
The holders list has 413 pages, each page has 50 unique wallet addresses which hold the sundae token, 413 page * 50 entries per page = 20,650
Again, the fee is not set in stone. It is totally up for voting to change the parameters of this proposal. The core of this proposal is should we add some fee X (maybe a percent fee capped at some ADA value) to transactions and distribute that fee amongst sundae holders. I personally have very little sundae, so little, that if this proposal passes, in an entire year, I would earn close to nothing from this. The good thing about this proposal is that the entry price of Sundae is not gatekept at all. Anyone can purchase it at a reasonable price, and it’s not like most early investors got sundae at a steal compared to where it is now, it’s the same price now as most people got it from purchasing on day 1.
Again I agree with you that liquidity providers need more incentives, and that right now the low volume + lack of incentives makes liquidity providing for pairs without yield-farming not worth it at all. So I suggest you draft a proposal to add more incentives for liquidity providers, and I will fully support it.
I see. The problem is that I don’t see any buttons for additional pages, or how many pages there are. I’ll just chalk that up to being inept at navigating that site and take your word for it. I may need to look up a youtube tutorial or something.
Okay, I’ll bite on this one. I originally bought over 100 k Sundae, being one of the people who as set high slippage on launch day. I immediately put in the entire amount day one that LPs opened. Then YF. I rolled everything back in after the first harvest. I now have over doubled that and my ADA.
I can tell you in all honesty I don’t care if this proposal passes or not. I am good whatever, but not for the reason you think. Even If I do nothing but reroll every month, even with zero APR or no Yield Farming, I make bank. That is , unless Sundaeswap becomes so irrelevant that the volume drops drastically.
If Sundae tanks because of its dumb “tokenomics” I simply pull my LPs…sell my Sundae and move on. People are here to make money …period. I did not buy Sundae tokens for the DAO. I would bet most did not. So…whatever you all think, I am going to vote for whoever makes the most compelling , logical argument, and more importantly , can come up with a better plan.
It is easy to argue against someone’s proposal just for the sake of argument, but the ones I respect are those who actually come of with alternatives. Saying Sundaeswap is guaranteed l be sustainable in the sea of De-Fi platforms with far superior tokenomics is naive.
All that being said, this might be better take up later, like you mentioned, when Scooper Fees are no longer in the equation. I assume scoopers are only temporary (hopefully)
Please understand I am not bragging about this. I never speak in Discord, I watch everything. I just had to respond to this because of how wrong I feel you are , at least in my case.
I agree with this proposal, adding value to the sundae token is important, but it will also decrease trading because the fee is very high. So I would vote for this IF the fee would be just 1 ADA or less
The 2.5 ADA fee was too high for me to vote Yes. I could vote YES to something more like a .5% fee that stops at 2.5 ADA. So if I swap 100ADA for something it’s .5 ADA fee. If I swap 500 ADA for something it’s a 2.5 ADA fee (this being the max). I swap a 1000ADA for something, it’s still a 2.5 ADA fee. And cut the fee in half for SUNDAE holders as an extra incentive. This encourages larger swaps without discouraging smaller swaps, and it incentivizes holding SUNDAE even more for the reduced fee. My concern with a flat 2.5 ADA fee is that it will deter small swappers.
I also wanted to add that any proposal to add a fee should probably include a change that reduces the scooper fee (maybe .5 to 1 ADA reduction). I believe it would be more palatable if the fee addition came with a change that produced a net reduction in the total fees.
Just to clear up some confusion about the temp check, I’m including what I said in the Discord to the Sundae Community members:
BenjaminTheRelentless, I hear you on that. The goal isn’t to damage the reputation of the community, but rather reward sundae token holders and make it attractive to stick around our community after yield farming ends. I looked around the ecosystem not long ago and realized there’s not enough utility in the Sundae token for folks to stick around long-term. I found that to be not okay. So my temp check proposal is going to change that. Regarding net fees, I’ve gotten a sense that the core issue with the 2.5 ADA fee isn’t really the fee going to Sundae holders. It’s the scooper fee that irks the hell outta people. I’ve made it very clear that changing the scooper fee should be handled separately, since it involves more stakeholders than what my temp check proposal is targeting. I think someone in the community should champion a scooper fee temp check, canvass the community, scoopers, the devs and put forth their best idea.
Regarding the 2.5 ADA amount, I think we can be flexible about the amount before it goes to an on-chain vote. I like BenjaminTheRelentless and Crown’s conversations about having a 2.5% ADA fee capped at 2.5 ADA to protect the small trader. Happy to keep that discussion going. Unfortunately, we cant have that discussion if the temp-check is voted down. That means the temp check proposal gets killed and it would be incredibly difficult to have the community revisit the conversation again. The timing would also be problematic since a lot of other dexs and protocols are going live soon, which naturally will suck up a lot of people’s attention.
With the way our current governance process works, the temp check proposal is the first indicator that the DAO wants to take up a matter and the on-chain vote is the DAO acting on that matter. Typically, the actual proposal isn’t included in the temp check. I did so because I thought the community would need the details in order to fully understand the ask. The final proposal can include changes like the 2.5% fee with a 2.5 ADA cap. If you liked the idea of rewarding the Sundae token holders but voted no because of the fee amount, you’re basically killing the idea entirely. If you like the idea of rewarding Sundae token holders but not the amount, I’d encourage you to vote yes and make it clear that you’d want to have a deeper discussion on the fee amount.
The fee is not set in stone, this temperature check is just to see whether the community is interested in profit-sharing. If you want to see profit-sharing from a fee, then vote yes. The exact amount of the fee will be voted on when the proposal gets on-chain.
i jsut dont think the fee is a good idea#1 if someone is only doing a $40 swap 2.5 ada is steep and if the other dexs dont have a fee like that people will go there 2 swap
The 2.5 ada is a lot . (both as a reward for sundae holders, or fee for sundae users)
I think a 0.5 ada fee would be something more sustainable. Then we should vote on decreasing the scooper fee to 2 ada, so that the total fees remain the same.
Seems like a good idea to keep the longer-term stability of the project. I like that there is an incentive to keep bonus/rewards and reinvest, with the fees going to the holders this should benefit the longer-term holders that stay in it when the waterfall of bonus coins are distributed and the short term investors are selling off, I kinda see this as a way for the short timers to redistribute the short term gain to the longer holders without having to reduce incentives that brought these contributors that help build the jump start an ecco system needs.