This proposal seeks DAO approval to allocate a liquidity mining budget of 10,000 HYDRA, distributed evenly across two strategic trading pairs on the new Hydra DEX:
HYDRA/USDC
HYDRA/WBTC
The incentive will be distributed at a rate of 5,000 HYDRA per pool per month
With an additional HYDRA:LYDRA pool can be deployed via treasury without causing inflationary pressure.
Context & Rationale:
HydraGon mainnet has now launched, bringing staggering performance with sub-second block times and 0.5-second finality—features that eclipse even the fastest L2s and many L1s.
As we approach the DEX activation phase, there’s strong momentum and excitement in the community. Liquidity mining will serve as a strategic catalyst to:
Jumpstart volume and user adoption of the HydraGon DEX
Attract core liquidity in blue-chip pairs
Validate market pricing for HYDRA, a prerequisite for more complex financial integrations (e.g., oracles, lending, derivatives)
By focusing liquidity incentives on HYDRA/USDC and HYDRA/WBTC, we target assets LPs are most likely to already hold, thus concentrating TVL and reducing dilution.
Budget & Allocation:
Pool
Monthly Incentive
Duration
HYDRA/USDC
5,000 HYDRA
per month
HYDRA/WBTC
5,000 HYDRA
per month
Total
10,000 HYDRA
A DAO review can be scheduled after 3 months to assess outcomes and determine next-phase scaling.
Options:
Yes — Approve the allocation of 10,000 HYDRA (5k per pool) to bootstrap the Hydra DEX
No — Do not allocate liquidity mining budget at this time
Execution Notes:
Upon approval, the incentives will be distributed through the Hydra DEX farming module. DAO multi-sig or a designated executor address will be responsible for deploying the funds in coordination with the core contributors.
Let’s fuel the engine and kickstart deep liquidity in the Hydra ecosystem.
All good , 10k hydra not that much , but what about other main pairs , like HYDRA/ETH for example ? and if we will have BNB in the DEX , BNB pair should be considered , maybe another 5k hydra for ETH and BNB pairs
Tbh I do not like the HYDRA/BTC pair or any other HYDRA pair except USDC. What was the total transaction volume on the old dex over the whole history? Is it possible to see the stats? Also, I believed that LYDRA was supposed to be the DEX backbone. Did that strategy change
Greetings Nikola, just had a few questions regarding this new proposal and the grand re-opening of our DEX on Hydragon.
-Why was the decision made to exclude LYDRA pairs from the current liquidity mining plan, especially given their past strategic role within the Hydra ecosystem?
-What specific benefits does the new approach offer compared to the old setup of incentivized LYDRA pools?
-Additionally, are there any potential drawbacks or risks the team considered that led to this change?
Looking forward to hearing thoughts from the team and other community members.
The challenge is rolling the program when market cap is contracted.
Low HYDRA price means reduced spending capability, which is why I recommend to start only with the two most essential pairs.
The 10k is a “safe bet” as it is insignificant as dollar value ~2k per month.
The goal is to get some data and see the direction. If there’s some positive response and APR is reasonable relative to attracted TVL, then we can scale higher.
In each case, doing it in steps is a safer approach, rather than rolling out a big reward for multiple pairs that may even compete against each other.
In the past, LYDRA:HYDRA had never had a LM plan. It was a pool deployed via DAO treasury.
This enabled the tokenomics to save emissions, while utilizing the idle DAO treasury.
Based on this we recommend to enable new emissions which cause inflationary pressure only on the pairs that require external non HYDRA capital.
As for why we don’t put all pools tied to LYDRA (e.g. LYDRA:USDC <> LYDRA:HYDRA)
It’s a switch from a 2-hop system with high fees, to 1-hop system with (HYDRA:USDC)
The main rationale of switching to HYDRA pairs instead of LYDRA is because in the past HYDRA had a very high inflation (~25%), this caused the staking APR to directly compete with the APR of the LM pools.
Which really lowered the efficiency of spending because each pool was directly competing with that high staking APR.
With the new tokenomics, the actual systemic APR is much lower which directly addresses the efficiency issue with LM. This is due to a combination of powerful tools.
vesting
slashing and premature vesting leading to burns
low unvested APR
macro-factor that acts like a handbrake on inflation in general
The combination of all of these tools, enables HYDRA staking to be much more prudent as a system and APR (especially when not vested). Even with high APR vesting factored in for loyal members, the systemic inflation will likely be in the ~7%- 8% in the end.
Based on this, the focus is to enable seamless direct transfers with as low fees as possible.
The LYDRA:HYDRA pool has volatility on its own which is also strategic to not put at the core of the entire liquidity system of HYDRA.
So in a nutshell
more efficient trades as fees
1-hop direct transfers
more simplified flow for LPs : especially for users who are not willing to vest, the LM could be a very attractive alternative without having to deal with LYDRA
lower volatility arising out of LYDRA itself which we saw hurting the dex volumes on legacy hydra, meaning lower potential impermanent loss for LPs
Yes — Approve the allocation of 10,000 HYDRA (5k per pool) to bootstrap the Hydra DEX
No — Do not allocate liquidity mining budget at this time
i love this idea. It would give us a platform to rely on despite exchanges or changes.
