There were some people that expressed hesitance about using SUNDAE tokens to buy liquidity; I believe their fear is that it risks spending the treasury too quickly for potentially risky initiatives.
How would people feel about me splitting that into a separate proposal, voted on in it’s own right?
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.
CORRECTION I made the mistake of using the words “LP Buyback.” This is not a buyback program but rather a liquidity purchasing program. The DAO is not buying anything back since it didn’t own the liquidity in the first place. I apologize for any confusion that I made to the community.
Oh, good point, I hadn’t even noticed that subtlety of language; I used “liquidity buyback” in the proposal, which is incorrect / only colloquial.
I think deposing LP of Sundae/ADA for a longer period of time should give more YF profit more.
What does everyone think about a 10%-15% target APR that we can work around as a baseline? I think it’s enticing enough being that it’s 3-4x the current Cardano staking rate and not too high that it’s not sustainable in the longterm. It’s also a lot higher than anything in banking or Tradfi currently.
As for the liquidity purchasing program maybe offer a 30/60/90 day option with a set scaling percentage (maybe a 2%-4%-6%)
The insurance program amount can be decided according to the perceived risk of a listing, if it’s an established project with known community members or an unknown startup.
This scale can be set from 100% collateral for the risky startups down to 25% for established projects.
I believe we should keep the initial budgets/Sundae emissions as low as we possibly can early on while at the same time offering sustainable returns that will keep the Dex healthy and self sufficient for as long as possible.
The percentages proposed earlier are just a few numbers to get the conversation started and see what everyone else thinks, we can all fine tune them together as we discuss this proposal further.
I think we’ll need a higher APR than 15% to bring back liquidity. I’m wondering if we could budget enough sundae for a 80 - 100% APR for 3 months, as a promotional period, and then go back down to 10 - 15% APR for the longterm sustainable period?
Agree, at launch you need a higher apr to get liquidity and probably reduce it once it starts coming, reducing it proportionally to tvl and reaching probably a target of around 10-15%
I love this idea of APR based on staked Sundae. What about another stake pool focused on decreasing emissions?
Imagine adding a small fee for transactions (like 0.01%) to create a Sundae Treasure just for Farm APRs. And then make a second Sundae Staking mechanism that would increase this new fee based on total staked (having maximum fee of 0.1% for example).
This way we can also help the Sundae holders who want to “decrease the selling of Sundae” in the market. This new fee would be in ADA , we would need to buyback Sundae so this would be a different incentive for Sundae holders. Sundae holders can choose staking to increase fees or to increase APRs.
This new treasure would help the APR from Farms based on the Staked Sundae from each “APR pool” decreasing the total Sundae emission.
That’s a really interesting idea! It’s likely a separate proposal, and also likely requires a change to the smart contracts.
The discussion in this forum is about Yield Farming, which aims to attract liquidity to the protocol. Users need incentives to choose Sundae over alternatives.
From my point of view, there are a few areas that need improvement. First, the user interface (UI) should be enhanced to make the DAO more visible. It would be beneficial to clarify the voting system, taking inspiration from how Indigo handles it.
In terms of rewards, offering incentives for providing liquidity in the most active trading pairs within the ecosystem would be effective. Implementing a rotation system based on the demand for different tokens could be considered. Proposals for token rotation could be made monthly.
In my opinion, rewards should be claimable by EPOCH, with the option for alternative locking periods that provide additional advantages and incentives for users to lock their SUNDAE tokens.
Reorganizing the Discord community could help increase participation in the DAO decision-making process. Duplicating or at least sharing the most relevant forum posts on Discord would encourage more engagement.
I believe these points can be beneficial for Sundae Protocol, as it has great potential, but it needs to take advantage of opportunities to attract Total Value Locked (TVL). Users should be aware that Sundae offers attractive yields in a secure manner.
The duration of DAO voting should be shorter, perhaps lasting for a single epoch, to expedite the protocol’s progress.
I hope these points serve as valuable input. Sundae Protocol has significant potential, and by implementing these suggestions, it can effectively attract TVL and provide users with secure and rewarding experiences.
I think we should consider a plan for farming on pools with IUSD, DJED (current cardano stable coins). I believe they are important for a dex and require a special attention, because they don’t have direct token emissions and are kind of new to the ecosystem.
And about the token emissions from others with sundae. What is the limit for sundae emissions matching the other tokens? And if the other token wants to give huge emissions can it be higher than sundae emissions?
I also think we should create incentives for other projects to give emissions with their own tokens. Like for example, if a project started to give farm emissions for the first time in sundaewasp the pool will receive a farm booster from sundae for a specific amount of time. We need other projects to collaborate with SUNDAE!
This proposal has passed it’s on-chain vote unanimously.
Locking this topic.