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.
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’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.
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.
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:
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?
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?
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.
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.
… 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.
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.
Let me translate this so even you can piece together what I’m saying as your continued lack of understanding, as members of mDAO purporting to do due diligence, shows more about you than you think. In this analogy I’m preaching to a choir while you’re out on the corner yelling about the end of the world like a homeless man.
First we’ll start here:
If you truly care about doing proper due diligence for mDAO, you should start by reading up on Lifinity and what exactly it is offering. Many of you still don’t seem to grasp anything that the protocol does. Perhaps before you speak here you’d be better off educating yourself on the subject matter and not wasting everyone’s time.
Second:
As an organization, mDAO is not tasked with making design decisions for the various protocols that host liquidity pools. We aren’t here to be the arbiter of do’s and don’ts, we don’t get to pick and choose how every protocol operates. Let the market decide which product performs best for its LPs.
If Lifinity wants to charge fees that are different than Orca or Raydium what business is it of mDAO to punish them for doing so? mDAO needs to remain credibly neutral as a DAO. If you’re going to pretend to host an “open system” that every protocol is being encouraged to participate in, then you can’t pick favorites when one of the protocols does something different and shakes up the system.
In your previous post, you’ve even gone as far as creating an imaginary scenario where Lifinity would start charging a 100% deposit fee for the pool. As if any of its other open-for-deposit pools operate this way, assuming as well that this wouldn’t be completely against the spirit of opening its pool. Of course if Lifinity were to behave in this way we would expect mDAO to shut down the gauge, as this effectively does nothing to change the fact that the pool is closed.
Moronic. Complete and utter nonsense, yet here we are again, having to respond to this horseshit. I guess this is how idiots do DD. We’ll just make up an unlimited list of scenarios in which Lifinity is the bad guy and turn this into a shitpost thread.
Lifinity has absolutely zero incentive to destroy its own integrity as a pool provider. Suggesting such is, again, a broad-sided attack on the integrity of Durden and the Lifinity team. Typically after making such accusations, you’d bring some sort of evidence that this was occurring with some of Lifinity’s current open-for-deposit pools. Alas, you’ve once again failed to bring that to the table because it simply doesn’t exist, and suggesting that it does, without even so much as a shred of evidence, shows how little you know about the subject matter which you currently wish to DD.
I get that some of you don’t seem to like Lifinity, because now you’re all going to have to work harder to get your MNDE emissions, but if you’re actually concerned about the success of mSOL, the decentralization of MNDE, and the future of mDAO itself then you must also realize that you’re throwing all of those things down the drain if you choose to become openly hostile towards a participating protocol instead of working with Durden, Lifinity’s team, and Lifinity’s many community members to find a way to move forward that encourages the previously mentioned objectives.
By continuing to argue in bad faith and outright refusing to discuss topics you’ve all shown how truly willing you are to solve the problem.
Lifinity, and its community, have bent over backwards to get to the bottom of this issue for the mDAO, yet the discrimination against us continues. It’s no surprise to me to see those with perverse financial incentives try to shut out their strongest competitor in the gauges.
Edit:
Question for all you brainiacs. How would you ever tell if Orca, Raydium, Saber, Aldrin etc. were LP’ing on their own platforms?
Answer: You wouldn’t.
I think what you are really trying to say, like many others here, is that the gauges shouldn’t work as they currently do, i.e. the amount of MNDE used to vote shouldn’t determine rewards. Instead, it should be based on how much utility is provided by a protocol (however that is measured). I think that’s a fine position to have, but in that case let it be clear that it has nothing to do with Lifinity in particular and should apply to all protocols equally. So if the gauges aren’t going to be changed, Lifinity opening its pools should be sufficient since it will function like any other protocol.
Any protocol can have misaligned incentives, so if there’s going to be “due diligence” on Lifinity, it should be done for all other protocols as well. If Lifinity opens its pool, there is no reason to single it out.
I’m surprised this even needs to be said, but if we open our pool it would function just like all our other open pools – no deposit/withdrawal fees, same LP share of fees, etc. We’re not so shortsighted as to open our pool in a manner that will only serve as a temporary loophole.
No, what I am trying to say is exactly what I wrote. Opening the gauge in the current form has been (IMO) a mistake. As we are trying to fix this mistake, we should make sure we spent the necessary time to come up with an actual solution that is vetted and thought through, so we don’t have to readjust the solution again in 2 months.
I have said the same thing about my initially proposed approach to fixing the mistake
After reading some more clarifications on what opening the pool means here and in Discord I don’t see any immediate red flags, but I’m also not the one you need to convince here.
I’ve been asked for my opinion and thoughts so I gave it, nothing more nothing less.
This is the relevant part:
