Lifinity community would like to quit wasting its time with useless governance proposals and debates. If mDAO would have done its homework in the first place, this entire thread could have been avoided. The countless hours of wasted time here are more annoying than anything. Lifinity, and its community, are merely wanting to be fairly compensated for the risk and the service being provided via hosting the mSOL/USDC pool, just as every other LP is compensated.
2 Likes
I get it. Requiring Lifinity to have a gauge and to lock its reward (which literally means the Marinade community wanted Lifinity ONLY to vote because afaik the ONLY two types of usage of MNDE token is selling for profit and locking to vote) is followed up with “over incentivized” almost immediately. In other words, the MNDE Lifinity gets could’ve been distributed and sold like other protocols, it was this community (well technically, some ppl, including you, in this community) that asked Lifinity MUST LOCK and quickly regret it.
This can’t be more ironic. I’d imagine if your proposal ever gets to pass so ppl in the entire ecosystem realize the Marinade community has 0 credit and begin to leave, you would propose another vote of “oh pls don’t leave me because now I want to take back what I’ve done(again)”. Do you realize what you’re proposing is ruining everything? Do you realize many ppl that are against your proposal are trying to protect the integrity of Marinade?
I don’t understand how it is so, so hard for ppl at your side to understand sth as simple as 1+1=2:
-
if you have a deal and later find it inappropriate, you first negotiate a term of a period how long the current deal exists, then you work on an improved revision AFTER THAT PERIOD. You don’t kick them out in 2 months. In this case, I think 1 year may be a fair point to start discussing with.
-
if a protocol is “over incentivized”, instead of “removing the protocol from the system” you let ppl freely choose to join the over-incentivized the protocol to enjoy+dilute the reward and/or to ask other protocol to take action and acquire more reward. You don’t demonize it. Esp. this over incentivization is your own handcraft.
Have some decency, accumulate your credit, respect agreements, negotiate reasonably.
sincerely.
1 Like
If you feel strongly against this, please feel free to propose your own methodology and data. I note that multiple people @mint and Ganyu in the discord have proposed data showing that Lifinity is over-incentivizied, only to be met by “THIS DATA IS WRONG” without any actual data or case presented by the other side.
There’s nothing wrong with the data that was provided. But it is entirely insufficient to draw any conclusions. I explained in detail why the inferences being made were flawed. The conversation starts here: Discord
While this might be true beforehand, I unfortunately have to disagree now. Proposal #1 would include the removal of the Lifinity mSOL/USDC pool regardless of whether it is open sourced or not . This is due to how many voices in mDAO being for and against the pool, and should be placed to another fair vote.
I assume you’re talking about our gauge; Marinade does not have the power to remove our pool.
All the reasons given in this thread for wanting to remove Lifinity’s gauge stem from our pool being closed. If our pool were open, it would function just like any other protocol, and all the reasons given for why it should be closed fall away. Please provide one reason why Lifinity’s gauge should be closed if our pool were to be opened.
2 Likes
85% of 8bp (6.8bp) is distributed to token holders so Lifinity itself keeps 1.2bp.
More emissions → more kickback point still holds
The protocol keeps 100% of fees from our mSOL-USDC pool since we are the only LP. This is unaffected by emissions. Still confused about what was trying to be said with this and the accompanying numbers you gave.
Don’t think this data could be subject to cherry-picking since its collection is fully automated.
I’m not questioning the veracity of your numbers. I’m saying it says nothing meaningful about Lifinity’s performance in terms of providing liquidity. See the Discord for my more thorough comments on why.
1 Like
Do I really need to repost all my comments from Discord here? The frequency of Lifinity being the best price is meaningless unless it’s compared with other mSOL-USDC pools, especially because many of the top routes will totally bypass mSOL-USDC liquidity, e.g. mSOL → SOL → USDC.
1 Like
Ever heard of the time value of money? Waiting comes at a cost; it is not free.
Yes, that’s what Marinade’s liquid unstaking mSOL/SOL pool with usd 13.1MM liquidity does: exchange time for money. And that’s why, IMHO, fixed $900K on mSOL/USDC is not relevant rigth now.
If I understand correctly, a positive thing from Lifinity is that the fee & spread are low, but what we need right now on mSOL/USDC is depth, so cheap fees are good but not the decisive factor here, in our case mSOL->SOL->USDC is a valid route for liquidations.
You cited mistaken figures about us in (iirc) the proposal thread too. Please check carefully before making claims like this.
You said it was 43% APR on the proposal discussion, I’m just quoting you.
Maybe for the sake of transparency, you should have said in that post:
Durden: APR, yes. Our proposed deal with Marinade is a one-time grant, so no there will not be on-going payments… except for 390,000 MNDE a month compounding that we will be getting from the gauge
1 Like
If I understand correctly, a positive thing from Lifinity is that the fee & spread are low, but what we need right now on mSOL/USDC is depth, so cheap fees are good but not the decisive factor here, in our case mSOL->SOL->USDC is a valid route for liquidations.
Liquidations are by no means the only important type of trade, but if you want Marinade to begin rewarding based on certain metrics, I’m happy to have that discussion. Indeed, it’s what we originally proposed (volume based compensation). As it stands, the gauges don’t measure anything but how much MNDE voters have. But as far as I can tell, the only metric that can be applied across all integrated protocols would be TVL.
You said it was 43% APR on the proposal discussion, I’m just quoting you.
First of all 50% ≠ 43.2%, and second that was an assumption-laden, hypothetical number based on our stSOL-USDC pool (which I made absolutely clear). But you confused that with the APR we are currently generating (which is 1/10 of that).
Maybe for the sake of transparency, you should have said in that post…
You talk as if we were hiding something. First of all, it should have been absolutely clear that we would be receiving MNDE rewards since part of the terms were to create a gauge for our pool. Surely there was no need for me to explain this to the Marinade DAO? Second, there is no way we could have known how much MNDE we would receive since that depends on the total amount of MNDE that is voting. There was no lack of transparency.
1 Like
Also, just so we’re all clear, this is patently ridiculous.
Your entire argument up until now hinges on the fact that Lifinity’s pool fails to incentivize users to grow mSOL TVL by being closed for deposits. If the pool were opened for deposits your argument no longer holds water.
Say what you will about the current way things are operating regarding the closed nature of Lifinity’s pool, but forcing Lifinity out of the gauges seems to be the point of this entire proposal. The thread itself being named “Mis-use of Marinade gauges” should have been hint enough for anyone here, but now at least we’re saying the quiet part out loud.
Seems you just don’t want Lifinity to be able to participate in benefitting from the liquidity gauges at all. If that was your intention, why not just say so from the beginning? Instead of beating around the bush for days, and wasting countless hours of time, we could have just started the debate there.
2 Likes
Have to agree here. Seems that since the beginning @CryptoBatman and occasionally @luciotato haven’t argued in good faith. This feels more and more like a targeted attack to Lifinity, not entirely sure why.
From the title of this topic to numerous comments, it seems some DAO members are for some reason waking up now and piling on Lifinity. Let’s not forget that most (all?) of the critical points raised so far were actually included in the original proposal by Lifinity, which was then changed at the request of Marinade DAO members.
Also it seems to me that some people are arguing against “rogue behaviors” in the gauges votes, when that’s the entire point of having gauges in the first place. So maybe they should make themselves more familiar with the mechanism and if anything propose changes to the gauge system, and not just make it about a single protocol playing the game within the rules.
From where I see it, Lifinity engaged early on and has been open to find a common agreement with the DAO, including the open-sourcing of their custom oracle. So to argue that somehow Lifinity is acting in bad faith is very disappointing and makes me question whether there is an ulterior motive.
I own both MNDE and LFNTY
2 Likes
I’m for disabling that gauge since the beginning, not because Lifinity, but because all the situation surrounding it: the exponential self-reinforcing loop, and the closed and fixed nature of the pool.
It was our (at least my) mistake to not fully understand what the deal entailed. It was also a mistake not to do due diligence on the deal and presenting clear numbers to everyone before making a decision. This forum format is good for debate, but we need also a clear, impoartial “numbers and ramifications” report with impartial analysis that does not get lost between forum messages.
We didn’t do that. We entered a bad deal that IMV hurts Marinade and disincentives further participation in the gauges system. I think that correcting a mistake is a good thing and show mDAO strength. Other people in the community will evaluate our reasons and decide for themselves if it is a good thing or a bad thing.
1 Like
You’ve still given no response as to why Lifinity should be punished if it were to open its mSOL/USDC pool for user deposits as offered above. If you indeed want “impartial numbers and analysis” maybe you should focus on practicing what you suggest. You can’t just cherry-pick which pools get a gauge or don’t based on your personal feelings about how the protocol chooses to operate. The discrimination being shown against Lifinity is totally uncalled for.
If Lifinity opens its mSOL/USDC pool as @durden has suggested, there is no longer a need for this discussion to continue. As seen above, both criteria quoted here will be satisfied per the original intentions behind the Liquidity Gauges.
If both criteria are being fulfilled, what else could be your motivations behind continuing to attempt to deny Lifinity access to gauge voting for its mSOL/USDC pool?
Surely you can’t still claim to be looking out for the TVL growth of mSOL while denying another protocol, and thousands of its LPs, the ability to incentivize it’s mSOL/USDC deposits by allowing its users a gauge to vote on.
1 Like
I am sticking to silence, I feel like everything is clear, each side has their points and we can take the weekend to cool off and read more into detail.
Here’s a quick poll to see where each side stands:
End of the day, MNDE talks.
- Vote Yes: Remove Closed/Permissioned gauges + Lifinity
- Vote No: Keep status quo
- Vote abstain: Something needs to be done but not this!
0 voters
@luciotato can you please respond to this post specifically?
Also - are your posts here representing the Marinade Team or your personal opinion?
You can stick to silence all you want, it’s about all you’ve got to hold onto after the points you’ve laid out previously have been clearly refuted by Lifinity generously offering to open its pool for outside deposits. The fact that you won’t even respond to that option should speak very loudly for anyone reading this thread.
To be clear, every other protocol with an open pool is allowed to utilize the gauges, but in this case, you’re saying mDAO should only shut Lifinity’s pool out of the protocol.
Seems fair amirite?
In fact, if Lifinity were to open its pool for additional deposits:
- mSOL TVL would be given room to increase because the pool would be open for additional LPs to add their liquidity to the pool.
- MNDE would continue to be decentralized among the thousands of token holders that represent the Lifinity DAO’s share of the LP in this pool.
Instead of having a healthy debate about a way to move this partnership forward you would rather force a proposal through governance that has clear consequences to the long term integrity of the liquidity gauge system and the mDAO itself. I simply won’t stand for it, and I hope other members of the mDAO can see how truly harmful behavior like this is to the reputation of this organization. I encourage everyone reading this to think very deeply about the long term impacts of this biased, narrow-minded proposal.
It’s telling that you keep pretending to care about MNDE decentralization while also refusing to acknowledge that Lifinity is owned directly by its thousands of LFNTY token holders and any MNDE distributed to the protocol is actually being distributed to the aforementioned LFNTY token holders who directly determine how those tokens are used, and when they will be distributed.
Liquidity gauges were put in place to drive SELFISH use of MNDE in order to direct the MNDE emissions towards pools as MNDE holders/lockers decide. If you can’t handle the fact that this is what Lifinity and its community, as well every other protocol, is encouraged to do, maybe you should be writing a new proposal to end the liquidity gauges all together.
I have to assume that we’re only being offered to “cool off for the weekend” because your arguments continue to get shredded to pieces by those of us who have done our homework and actually understand the dynamics at play here. If you can’t handle the heat, why try to pretend to be a chef?
Indeed.
2 Likes
If we opened our pool so that we function the same way as other DEXs, what reason would there be to shut down our gauge?
1 Like
Why would you stick to silence when a critical question that could resolve this entire discussion is being asked? If we opened our pool so that we function the same way as other DEXs, what reason would there be to shut down our gauge?
2 Likes
I think it is not as simple as opening up the pool or not opening it up, it is about aligning incentives between all parties to drive behavior that helps Marinade and mSOL, which potentially is not an easy task and the devil is in the details.
For example if the pool was to have bad UX, high withdrawal fees, or other things that would directly or indirectly disincentivize “external” LPs from providing liquidity, opening up the pool would not really help IMO.
I can understand why there might be potential that the fact that Lifinity would act both as DEX and MM/LP might lead to misaligned incentivizes, so we should definitely do the due diligence on the details if we pursue this route.
There should have been more due diligence before opening a gauge, we should definitely avoid passing a handwave-y solution and then 2 months later ending up in the same situation again, because we realized it wasn’t a real solution.
2 Likes
I can keep doing this for another week or two if you’d like. Afterall, for the amount of times we’ve had to repeat things, it’s a shocker we’re not over 200 messages in the thread yet.
#DAOgovernance
2 Likes
… did you even read the post you are quoting? 
This is the relevant part:
Let me translate this so even you can understand what he’s saying:
If Lifinity just opens the pool up they still do not “function the same ways as other DEXs”. As a market maker Lifinity competes directly with would-be LPs. Therefore they have every incentive to keep them out of the DEX or make their life as hard as possible.
Look, if they open the pool but put a 100% deposit fee thats not really helping the situation at all, even though they “opened the pool”.
I said that since my very first post, Lifinity works different, their LPs are different, the incentives are different, the gauges were not designed for that. The only reason there is so much repeating needed is because you guys apparently can’t read and think further than the Lifinity koolaid you all drank.
1 Like
Is this a “man invents fictional scenario and then gets angry about it” ? The UX is already there for other pools and it’s not bad at all.
Re: withdrawal fees, Lifinity has given no indication that they would introduce them. So if that’s a big concern why not discuss it here rather than flat out refusing to engage with @Durden’s proposal to open up?
If the pool is opened, it would work like any other DEX (which is why shutting down the gauge makes no sense). The only exception is that the protocol is also a LP in the pool on par with anyone else who wants to deposit.
2 Likes