I like this proposal but I think we can implement an easier solution to create less overhead for both DAOs. By this proposal perhaps setting the standard, if we have to create a DAO (multisig) for each co-liquidity pool I think it creates a lot of administrative bloat. Perhaps a simpler solution would be to swap 100k worth of tokens and then LP it with our own treasury funds, held by our xdai main multisig that currently is handling the same sort of task with other token swaps.
Shared liquidity acts as treasury diversification for both DAOs.
This would perhaps make truer this point here. In the case of havng a separate multisig for the LP then neither org really has control of the asset, nor does either benefit clearly from the swap fees. In terms of mutual accountability, having each direct accesss to it’s respective share of LP tokens would make it easier for one side to terminate the agreement or manage its own treasury’s funds.
This is a great idea. I can edit the proposal to reflect this.
Wouldn’t the LP position grow, which would then be split in half at the new size if/when removed, which would benefit both parties for holding larger LP position?
Honestly I think it is better if there is a multisig w signers from each DAO. This way both DAOs have to consent before selling liquidity. It’s much cleaner… like an on-chain contract.
The administration work seems mostly to be at the initialization of everything. setting up the multisig and then providing liquidity… holding LP tokens doesn’t require coordination. We only need to revist if/when we want to do something with those LP tokens, and I think this just be at the collaborative consent of both parties.
I’m quickly finding out from managing many multisigs that the adminsitrative overhead is ongoing - all the cat-herding becomes more confusing, remembering multisig names - who’s on them, what their address is, if they’re online… it really isn’t as simple as I had once thought. it’s also much more beneifical for each org to hold it’s own portion of LP tokens. Being able to control your own assets, especially in the context of a collaboration allows for another level of mutual accountability.
@mitch so basically each DAO could do it’s own token swap, and LP their tokens on their own multi sig, instead of entering a pool with the other DAO on a joint multi sig? I like this idea. Much easier for Giveth to make changes the an LP position if needed.
What’s the story with this? Would love to see some movement
Was Shapeshift DAO cool with the idea of splitting the tokens like this?
If not, lets just go with the way that works and move on to the next Swap I expect to work on like 4-5 deals in ETHDenver with other groups.
We track all our multisigs here, I think the “it’s annoying to have the multisig overhead” is not a strong enough reason to prevent us from acquiring liquidity. We have a deadline, let’s stop paying for farming in 4 months huh? To do that we need to get 2-3 million GIV in pools that we control… LFG.
hey @GBeast can you keep this forum thread updated with any polls or useful information for Givethers - I see there are multiple threads inside the shapeshift forum but that’s not as useful for on the Giveth side if we need to have polls for soft consensus.
Here is a link to the updated proposal over in Shapeshift. It has been advanced to the “Ideation” phase
Key Changes:
Swap size increased. Total pool now at $1Million (50/50 FOX/GIV)
There were 3 questions that I would like input on in the proposal:
a. Question: What chain and dex should we select to host the pool
b. Question: What is the best way to manage the wallet that controls the LP tokens?
c. Question: Should Giveth use the same pool as ShapeShift does? Or would it be better if we created a pool on a different chain and/or dex? The first option would have more liquidity, the second option might reach more users.
So not much new happening over on the ShapeShift side of this proposal.
There has been 1 suggestion that they use their new Gnosis Safe to hold their LP tokens, which helps to answer one of the questions that were posed.
On the Giveth side, do we have any feedback as to whether we would put our liquidity into the same pool, or would we rather create a 2nd pool on another DEX?
I would be inclined to put it in the same pool, to achieve greater overall liquidity.
Is there a particular DEX and chain we would like to use?
Well I think there are reasonable arguments for both mainnet & gnosis chain. My thoughts…
GIV/FOX on honeyswap on gnosis chain makes sense because we have the FOX RegenFarm on gnosis, and we already have a little FOX held by our Giveth multisig on gnosis chain that we were going to use for liquidity. It’s also nice to have some hefty gnosis chain liquidity because we are going to do the angel vault and have a bunch of GIV liquidity for that on mainnet already… thinking about solutions for when we shut off the GIVfarm.
GIV/FOX on mainnet makes sense because FOX has a lot of mainnet liquidity already… and actually, right now, we have more GIV liquidity on gnosis chain than mainnet (because no angel vault yet). I don’t have a good arguement for any particular dex on mainnet.
I’m good on either chain or any DEX personally… If I had to pick something, I would say Gnosis Chain on Honeyswap because most of our emissions happen on xDai (GIVbacks, GIVgarden proposals, nrGIV proposals, GIVdrop claims, etc) and we have the routing stuff sorted on Honeyswap and it’s always nice to support 1hive.
If on mainnet, I’d just go for Uniswap since it has the best trading volume by far.
