This proposal addresses short-term opportunities and challenges while staying aligned with the current strategic priorities.
Key Points:
As part of the ongoing marketing program (see: Hydra DAO Core Marketing Program Launch), a significant part of the budget has been preserved as “Save for Later.”
Latest figures:
$66,898 in USDC accumulated via “Save for Later,” gradually converted as per the program.
Approximately 304,000 HYDRA, accumulated but not yet converted.
A HYDRA ERC-20 deployment pool has already been pre-approved, making this an ideal opportunity to utilize these funds for deploying DAO-owned liquidity to that pool.
Arguments in Favor:
Puts the accumulated budget to immediate use.
Involves no direct expenses (though subject to impermanent loss).
Enhances liquidity access for HYDRA, especially for first-time users unfamiliar with bridging or other available markets.
Eliminates the need to liquidate the idle 304,000 HYDRA.
Perfect dual side utilization of the both chunks (coincidentally, the 304k HYDRA which is not liquidated is almost perfectly matching the USCD side)
Present Low HYDRA price also translates to potential upside on the HYDRA side of the pool via impermanent loss exposure. This can translate to the DAO not only supporting the liquidity, but also potentially making a LONG position into HYDRA as far as the markets go
Deploying a moderately concentrated pool would establish Uniswap as critical liquidity infrastructure, while also supporting future DAO operations, including DAO-run programs.
Finally, the DAO retains flexibility, as the liquidity pool can be withdrawn if better opportunities arise.
Since this proposal leverages pre-approved programs and is focused on reallocating the “Save for Later” budget, I propose a shorter voting timeframe.
Voting in favor would result in a HYDRA ERC20 pool deployed with the allocated budget on Uniswap.
Voting against would preserve the budget for potential spending on marketing endeavors.
A potential use of the funds for any marketing has no guarantee for an outcome. Based on this I recommend to first focus on the liuqidity deployment first. Either way it is synergistic as it reduces friction for onboarding new users via the Ethereum ecosystem.
Upon approval, execution will be in matter of days.
I wouldn’t support this proposal if the price situation of Hydra was different, or if the total amount of savings was much higher. I don’t expect to get extraordinary results out of a marketing investment of $130k for the HydraGon launch, so I agree that starting this pool could be a better use for these DAO funds.
I don’t think it’s the right decision to use all that money and keeping it setting in the pool!
How many people will use that pool? While the same people can do one more step and bridge it and use the HRC20 instead of the ERC20 version.
We need every dollar to be used in the coming marketing for the HydraGon launch .
If you find the pool is very necessary, I suggest to use half or part of the budget.
And besides that ,if the same money were used in the proper way of marketing the price of Hydra will open lots of doors and instead of low budget we have it will be doubled or tripled in USD value .
As I also said in the our Telegram, I have too little information on your next steps after launch to make a well thought of vote. Although I would rather see it being used for marketing, because there are already very little funds available for that, a new pool can make it easier for people to buy. But by voting for the pool, I would need more info. There is a great product coming, you can even say maybe superior to others. But you can have the best of the best, but if nobody knows about it, its worth nothing.
Honestly I’m not feeling this proposal. Usually I like all the proposals that Nikola gives, hence I don’t comment. But not this one.
We voted to save these funds, not for the sake of saving, but so that we could accumulate a large amount of funds to have a significant push of marketing at the time of the deployment of Hydragon. We were hoping to have some substantial marketing with some first tier marketing opportunities to get proper exposure at the correct time.
If the funds are now taken and tied up in investment, we will lose the opportunity that we had been saving this money for. It would have been better not to liquidate Hydra all this time, forcing the price down, or maybe even it would have been better to use it for marketing all this time. But we were setting aside these funds for a purpose. An important purpose.
So no, I’m not feeling this, sorry!
It took me a while to post as I have been thinking deeply about it. I think I would be for this proposal as it takes away friction to buy and at the same time the liquidity can be taken away once needed for anything else or when a better time to market starts. We can still do tier 1 marketing from this money at a later stage when we see how our tier 2 marketing is actually doing after hydragon is out. Lets learn from this expeirence first before we spent it. I voted for saving the money a couple of times as I believe marketing before hydragon was to early. We need to be careful with the funds we have. Lets put it as liquidity, see how it goes after hydragon and than decide after lessons learned. The money wont be gone. Just being saved for later longer while at the same time helping onboard new communiy members easier. Also with the price raises coming the marketing budget will be higher and achieve more.
