My proposal is simple. Lets add hydra to Uniswap to re-include all the dear people from the United States that are now being left out due to Kucoin changing their policy in the current political environment in the US. This would also be great to assure to keep any other country included as well if they ever decided to change their policy as well.
This way we are sure to include anyone from anywhere without any discrimination. The liquidity could come from the DAO with the DAO still being able to withdraw any funds for other means whenever necessary. Or if this is not wanted, please commend where we else we could get the liquidity? Is it possible to share the liquidity of kucoin with uniswap for example? Lets find out a way together and once a good proposal is drafted start a vote on that!
5 Likes
The integration of HYDRA on ETH Uniswap may be strategic, not for US persons, but in general due to Ethereum and Uniswap providing mainstream access to broad audience.
In terms of acquisition of new members, the most effective method is always through mainstream pathways.
I think it’s a good idea and may improve the conversion ratio of cold audiences to Hydra community members.
It’s not necessary for hte pool to be big. It can play a supporting role in the expansion of the digital presence of HYDRA.
5 Likes
Alright, those are good insights and make sense to me. Converting cold audiences will help getting a larger community and help in making hydra deflationary. Every bit counts. What would be needed to make this happen and what could be a good proposal to be voted on?
Ok so how do we move forward with this? Who would do the task of implementing it?
This will be included in the next on-chain vote, together with 1-2 other proprosals for which there is a seeming support in the community.
However, keep in mind that the DAO has no reserves as stablecoins and will rely on an incentive for stimulating the liquity pool to grow.
I think it is worth discussing electing a DeFi partner (Uniswap or Sushi or Curve) where an additional small chunk as LM can be deployed in order to ensure that there will be a continuous stimulus for the pool to be sustained as size and density in order to cut reliance on a single entity for the pool.
I also think it’s better to deploy two pools. The rationale being a likely higher achieving of efficiency vs a single pool. It will also provide presence of both native assets on the Eth landscape which is also strategic as LYDRA is likely to experience its own price action.
The suggested structure:
3000 HYDRA per month:
LYDRA:USDC → with a higher concentration of liquidity mining incentives. The LYDRA doesn’t stake and therefore is likely to benefit higher efficiency as TVL vs emissions
2000 HYDRA per month:
HYDRA:LYDRA → with lower concetration of liquidity mining incentives, due to the low impermanent loss between the two assets
Total emissions: 5000 HYDRA per month for a term of 3 months as a trial. After the trial passes the community can decide whether to increade/decrease or stop the program altogether based on the evidence of its utilization.
The likely result of this is some rebalancing of the LP from within the Hydra ecosystem through the Hydra bridge, and out into the Ethereum ecosystem DeFi with purpose of enabling a new pathway for cold audiences.
3 Likes
Moving this post to the general category to avoid Duplication of the same topic
1 Like
