To clarify, we plan to open the pool within a day or two, before the two current proposals end.
1 Like
This does not solve one of the main issues at play: Lifinity is then not on an even keel with the other protocols in the gauges.
Lifinity will still have a huge MNDE stack that it got for free, and is compounding votes on, which is going against the spirit and aim of the gauges.
There is no consensus. There is a vote open now to remove Lifinity from the gauges, due to the issues in this thread. It wasn’t just about a closed AMM.
What is an “even keel” in this context? As far as I can tell, no one is on an even keel; every protocol has arbitrary amounts of MNDE, mostly based on how much they decided to buy in the token exchange program. The amounts aren’t tied to utility provided or any metric like that.
Lifinity did not get it for free. We developed a custom oracle, open sourced it, and continue to provide liquidity and take on all the risk that entails.
Is locking MNDE rewards and voting “against the spirit and aim of the gauges”? Because that is what Lifinity does. If so, what should people be doing with their MNDE? The only other thing I can think of is to sell it. Is the spirit of the gauges to dump?
When I say there’s a general consensus, I’m referring to the fact that no one has provided a reason to close Lifinity’s gauge. Any reason given should apply to Lifinity alone, but since Lifinity will work like every other protocol once the pool is opened, any conceivable reason will apply to other protocols too. The only argument I can think of is “so we can get more MNDE rewards”, but of course no one will say that outright.
1 Like
It’s been pointed out many times by several people that the deal & current setup was terrible for mDAO, and now many feel it’s time to address it via this proposal. By your logic a large LP could come to mDAO and pitch to get 2m MNDE for providing 1m of liquidity in Orca. But the same deal would never pass now that the community is paying more attention.
As I read the comments, the argument is more to enable a fair setup. Even the title of the proposal is highlighting ‘mis-use of gauges by closed AMM’, then it lays out the situation. It was not only about ‘change closed AMM to open to solve all problems’
You can talk about the grant’s merits or lack thereof, but that is a past and separate topic from the current situation and the time to discuss it was when it was being proposed. We tried incredibly hard to get the mDAO community to participate in the discussion and voting for our grant, but Solend was the only MNDE-holding protocol that chimed in. It’s great that the community is now paying more attention.
Once Lifinity’s pool is opened, it will function just like any other protocol. How is that not a fair setup?
1 Like
I feel like was pretty clear my opinion is that mDao overpaid and there is no other recourse that mdao can take. If you have any ideas i think everyone would be open to hearing.
The whole thread is about how the Lifinity gauge is leading to exponential compounding at very bad conditions for mDAO. Opening the pool is not gonna do anything as long as Lifinity is owning a significant portion of the liquidity. The problem is not closed or open pool, the problem is POL
1 Like
-
We have repeatedly said that we’re willing to distribute rewards if that’s what mDAO wants. Locking rewards is part of the terms of the grant. If mDAO wants to change that, please do. Until then, we are not going to unilaterally violate the terms of the grant.
-
Once our pool is open (probably today, waiting on Marinade now to change the Quarry page now), any individual will be able to do the exact same thing that Lifinity is doing, namely take their MNDE rewards, lock them, and vote for the gauge in which they are participating. This will benefit not just themselves but also everyone else who is a depositor in that gauge.
2 Likes
Every other protocol looking at Lifinity wondering why Lifinity won’t let them keep robbing mDAO blind.
A bit off topic, but I notice this on many people here, some are from marinade and that is even more concerning: What you express makes me understand you are against innovation in defi.
POL came to solve many problems that traditional defi have, like mercenary liquidity, which leads to contant sell pressure of the tokens that are used as rewards. ¿Are you aware of this or you just arrived from Melmac? Do you have a better idea or you are ok with MNDE being a down only token? Either you dont understand the dynamics behind this, or you are ok with it, probably because you are also dumping…
For what it’s worth, I would not conflate people’s perception of this arrangement, with how they may perceive any particular protocol - much less assume that them having a low perception of either means “they are against innovation in DeFi”.
It’s best if we keep the discussion to the specific topic at hand.
I do not believe anyone here finds cats tasty, although I can ask.
Speaking for myself, I find Ork much more pleasant.
gosh… said many times before but here we go again i guess:
a. There is no point in the “POL” set up that Lifinity is running because the liquidity is not owned by Marinade itself and Marinade is still expected to continuously pay rewards to Lifinity anyways which defeats the whole point of “POL”. For Marinade there is absolutely no difference, actually it’s paying more to Lifinity than needed.
b. Holding tokens is not what makes the price go up or even prevent the price from further dropping, other users need to buy the token. No one is gonna bother to buy up more MNDE if Lifinity can accrue MNDE so easy compared to others. People will either just abandon mDAO or switch their farm model to something similar which takes away value from mDAO
2 Likes
The way that Marinade pays Lifinity for its liquidity is the same as how it pays any LP on any DEX for their liquidity. Regarding the amount paid, gauges are not designed to pay X amount for Y liquidity provided; the amount paid is determined purely by the amount of MNDE used to vote. It’s fine to argue against this, but just realize that you’re not arguing against Lifinity or POL but against the way gauges function.
Voted NO on 16 and YES on 17.
Really appreciate @Durden’s willingness to cooperate and come to an amicable solution here. The mDAO community will be stronger because of it.
3 Likes
Hello folks,
In case you missed it, Proposal 16 has failed (16M for and 29M against) and Proposal 17 has passed (19M for, 9.9M against, 50k Abstains).
It doesn’t look like there are any immediate follow-up actions for either, since Lifinity has already opened their pool. This thread has gotten unwieldly, so any new arguments are likely better served by having their own topic.
I’ll be closing this thread soon unless there are any objections.