Technically yes, it will solve the problem and allow Lifinity’s gauge to be re-listed under the new model. However, due to the high amount of concerns raised at this LaaS partnership, I highly suggest using my previously mentioned 2 proposals system. The second proposal can be modified to be something along the lines of Lifinity opens it’s pools instead of volume based compensation. I suggest the proposals go live on Sunday (to maximize weekday voting time), so feel free to take the next 2 days to consult the Lifinity community and craft the proposal.
If we opened our pool, there should no longer be any need to make any changes, right? We would work just like every other protocol. Also, we don’t need to make a proposal to Marinade to open our pool, so if we opened our pool there should be no need for any proposal, correct?
terms are set Lifinity doesnt need to do a damn thing. If you want to push some new proposal you would be on your own to draft and negotioate terms. FYI I will push back on all of them.
I’ve been reading the updates of this post, I’m surprised that I don’t see anybody from marinade taking responsibility from the fact that Lifinity is where it is in terms of Marinade because a proposal was presented, modified, and approved through Marinade governance procedure.
The modifications on the original proposal were asked by people from Marinade, and all this happened just 2 months ago!! Now they are asking to go back to original proposal, or to suspend the whole deal… at least this is what I understand from many of the actors here.
It’s not good for Marinade to go back and forth on their deals, it’s not serious way of working.
Lifinity opened source a piece of software due to the deal that was reached, and that cannot be undone. This kind of deals on web3 are equivalent to contracts, and contracts are to be respected without complains, at least for a reasonable time, and **2 months is not a reasonable time. **
If the problem is that Lifinity will continue to stack MNDE and vote for their gauge…, why not waiting to see if the market fixes this, and MNDE ends up having more value due to this. Like, protocols can invest on MNDE to increase their voting power, and they might want to do this because they get their liquidity by offering a better APY, and nobody from Marinade seem to accept this as an option, or even wait to see if it happens. -
<I feel we are moving towards closing comments, each sides have made their case clear, and its time to let things sit, and wait for the vote>
In aggregate, i feel that everyone has a fruitful discussion (ignoring some overly Lifinity shills and someone who wants me to be censored). It is time to relax, digest the comments, and wait for voting.
I think this is clear when you compare the MNDE incentives that Lifinity gets, to the volume and TVL of the pool. It is definitely over incentivized, with pools with much lower tvl or higher volume getting much lower incentives. Compare Lifinity’s mSOL/USDC pool with whirlpools. However, Durden’s that Marinade DAO should not be looking to make things fair, but letting this be a MNDE stack war is reasonable as well.
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.
No one is silencing your votes. You are always free to vote against this proposal. However, the idea that this proposal SHOULD NOT BE BROUGHT UP at all, is actually silencing other’s opinions and votes.
However, a DAO should follow the votes of it’s holders, and if a proposal like this passes a MNDE vote, it is perfect fair for a DAO to modify something. Lifinity has received a 2M MNDE grant that is perfectly reasonable to be used to block this. There is already a 2M MNDE head start compared to others, and is reasonable. As @marky mentions, there are many who feel it is unfair that Lifinity already has 2M mnde. This is more than reasonable payment for the creation and open sourcing of the oracle. One that if you actually ask around, realize that absolutely no one other than Lifinity is using.
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 will propose Proposal #1, once again, you are free to vote no as your votes are not silenced, and I once again suggest @Durdenas it is much beneficial if you craft the proposal, instead of me to win the support of your Lifinity community, to craft Proposal #2 which would involve how Lifinity and mDAO will proceed after this. I will promise to personally abstain from discussing or shitting on the proposal, including voting No. Because once again, I am not someone targeting Lifinity contrary to your community’s belief.
If so, I suggest including these terms in a DAO proposal next time for a minimum viability. The way i look at it, is Lifinity received 2M MNDE, which is fair payment for an open sourced oracle that no one other than Lifinity is using. If you feel this is unfair, vote no.
I also want to add that I am not a member of the Marinade team. Marinade’s chefs suggestion makes sense then, but it is reasonable in my opinion to bring it up for discussion and voted now. This is similar to a review proposal, one that happens all the time. If it was up to me, I would have included the review process in the original proposal. I personally regret not voicing out strongly then. (Lot’s of that going around rn).
My god. How many times can I be more clear. I would like to silence your opinion so we stop slowing progress with unfruitful discussions and constant re-assessments of decisions made just a couple months back.
You need to preface this by stating “Your personal opinion is…” so people know to gloss over the next lines as you present subjective opinions as facts. As this thread gets bigger doing this well help future readers as well so win for all.
The death of Marinade is in this statement. Regret. Constant re-evaluation of decisions a DAO makes in a decentralized ecosystem will paralyze it’s ability to adapt and act to changing situations. He had his choice and decisions were made. Im cool with re-assessing but not after 2 months. 6 months maybe 12 is reasonable.
I won’t let you hold this DAO hostage with your personal insecurities and fear.
The data from mint and ganyu was refuted here and on discord. It is not correct to say otherwise. Its really tiring trying to keep things balanced and on topic. So now we have to spend time correcting you for the benefit of other people who may read this thread.
I cant believe you are not willing to accept the compromise posted by Durden. This is very telling indeed.
I do think its time to see some comments here from the Marinade team leaders. There is the reputation of the protocol at stake.
85% of 8bp (6.8bp) is distributed to token holders so Lifinity itself keeps 1.2bp.
More emissions → more kickback point still holds
Small correction, ! ganyu runs @mint 's Validator, same person.
Will compile some more details in a day or so, but here’s what I got from pulling Jupiter quotes with a cronjob every minute, where _id is the trade being simulated (buy mSOL with USDC/sell mSOL to USDC, number is size), count is the number of times that Lifinity mSOL-USDC gave the best quote, total is the number of samples:
Don’t think this data could be subject to cherry-picking since its collection is fully automated.
But how is any of this relevant. Post below from @Durden in discord on the back of this data you were running
"I did correct the errors in inference and premature conclusions being drawn from that data, but I would hope that I don’t have to continue doing so. There should be a comprehensive methodology laid out before throwing out numbers here as if they prove something. Data science is hard, and it’s easy for misinterpretations to occur. Let’s be thorough and rigorous.
My simulation represents what a real user (not bot) that is looking to trade the mSOL/USDC will see and possibly execute. If Lifinity isn’t showing up as the best route that often, then maybe it isn’t that efficient at all. Incentivise pools that drives organic usage to make them more useful so potential users are more willing to get their hands on some mSOL.
TDLR - The volume lifinity gets is typically when others aren’t able to offer ($1,133,818 in last 24hrs). This is good in itself and tightens the spreads.
Specifically on spreads:-
When I traded msol on ftx there was a 30 point spread at times. So inefficient and at high values you lost a lot so It made more sense to hold SOL instead of mSOL. However with lifinity mSOL pool that changed. Its essential to understand that as lifinity concentrates liquidity at the ‘real’ price that the spread is a lot lower.
Even if lifinity is better on one side of the trade (It is based on the trades it gets as above) it has gotta be tightening spreads by the very nature of the design of lifinity.
In summary, a combination of all Amms including Orca, Raydium, Aldrin & Lifinity is best. Looking at ways to see if lifinity is worth it or not is missing the point imho.
If lifinity was being paid $100000000000 a year for this liquidity it would clearly not be worth it, if they were paid $0 it would be worth. this implies there is some value between which is the highest price at which it is still worth it, the assertion of many is that the current price is not worth it, hence the desire to to exit the deal. I can only assume those from the lifinity community are pushing to continue the deal because they know lifinity are being overpaid.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
