Should Marinade sell all their Solend tokens for USDC?

Solend is clearly coming down hard on Lifinity and their action creates bad optics for Marinade. While nothing can be done with their outsize position as a a major holder, it would behoove Marinade to sell their Solend holdings to remain impartial in this quarrel.


Is the only reason to remove the possibility of people arguing that Marinade is partial because of it holding SLND through proposal 22?

It seems that for it to have that effect Marinade would need to execute the sale right away, before the proposal closes, and it would be impossible for a governance vote to finish in that timeframe.

I’d argue that Marinade has interests on both sides of this argument - yes, it holds SLND tokens, but has paid Lifinity 2M MNDE to kickstart the market-making partnership. Lifinity The Lifinity camp has threatened to sell the tokens if a proposal to close their gauge goes through, which means Marinade would lose out on a deal that was meant to last for a year, and the likely MNDE price impact would have implications for its incentives as a whole.

Unless the argument is that SLND price would benefit from the gauge closing, thus increasing the value of Marinade’s holdings, I’m not sure I see a clear reason to argue that those holdings should make one tradeoff much more valuable than the other, and thus skew the entire team’s perspective.

1 Like

Lifinity threatened to sell their MNDE? That’s a possibility (as with any asset owned by our token holders) since the partnership and its terms would be nullified, but geez what’s with the phrasing? You make it sound as if we said “if you close our gauge we’re gonna sell the MNDE so you better not!” If our gauge is closed, the utility of our MNDE hugely decreases, and if our community decided to sell it that would likely be the main reason.

1 Like

Strongly disagree to this proposal for the given context. There are many reasons for selling a token (its price, project horizon not strong,…etc) but definitely not for a governance stance that “you” think is against your opinion. While I can understand why you thought this action is needed and I can empathise a bit (whether I agree or not), this is definitely not worthy enough to be voted upon.

not worthy? That’s up the voters to decide

Hi Durden,

Indeed, that much is clear from when the topic last came up.

Just so there’s no confusion later on, if the gauge is removed Lifinity will consider itself absolved of its duties (such as providing liquidity) since the terms will have been violated.

One of the duties is to hold the MNDE for a year, so it would be natural for MNDE holders that assume that’s one of the possibilities being referred to.

There have been comments from Lifinity community members, who I would imagine would vote on the DAO decision, about how this is exactly what should happen if the gauge is closed.

I was not referring to you personally, so I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. You personally have been civil through this entire discussion.

While I don’t think the proposal is practical, given that Marinade could not pass or reject a motion to sell the SLND before proposal 22 completes, there is no proposal veto - if @octo wanted to send this onchain, it would be entirely their call.

1 Like

Yeah there have been comments from our community members, I am aware. I just don’t want what any individual says to be taken as representative of “Lifinity”, which is why I took issue with the phrasing of “Lifinity has threatened”. Similar to how Lollipop was wreaking havoc during the previous proposal and some people just assumed he represented Lifinity or that Lifinity condoned everything he did, just because he happened to be on the side of Lifinity. It got so bad that I nearly had to apologize on behalf of Lollipop to prove my disassociation from him (weird, I know). In the end, I did have to use strong language just to convince bystanders that I was not happy with what he was doing. Anyways, the way you phrased it could easily lead to misunderstanding, which is why I am trying to nip it in the bud here. Hope you understand :pray:

1 Like

Yes, this is more than fair. I have edited my original post to make it clear it was more coming from people on your camp than yourself, leaving the change obvious.

Meanwhile, I’m going to mumble something about my bad habit of checking the forum before the coffee hits me…

1 Like

I don’t think that’s weird. At times, Lollipop is more of a liability than an asset for Lifinity. Through his cringy proposals, the Lifinity reputation does take a hit. I hope that doesn’t impede the future ability of Lifinity to do business in the ecosystem.

More generally, I would appreciate if the relevant protocols bilaterally & jointly worked on a constructive solution, rather than one-sidedly putting the nuclear option up for vote in the DAO.


Lollipop doesn’t represent Lifinity, Lifinity has no control over what he does, and he literally does not give a fuck what Lifinity team members think. He is just off doing his own thing. The reputational damage sucks, but more discerning people can understand the nuance above and not make assumptions about the stance of Lifinity. It’s incredible that I have to say this but no, we don’t condone his actions.

1 Like

I tried to mediate on the Discord on Saturday, and suggested involving both the Marinade team and protocol representatives on a design discussion, but neither party would move.

@nope would only postpone the proposal if Lifinity would return the pool fees to the state it was previously in (equal conditions on fee distribution, if I understood him correctly). @Durden sees it as being bullied by Solend to change how their protocol works, given the fee change already took place.

That leaves us where we are.

For what it’s worth: it’s not incredible, because a Chef who isn’t also a member of Lifinity’s community can’t know if Lollipop is a significant part of it, or maybe even part of the team. I do think distancing yourself from his absurd behavior has made that clear.

Perception is reality, I don’t make the rules

IMO there needs to be a long-term solution that goes beyond the gauge vote.

Each party should think around what their goals are, and where negotiation room & red lines lie.
For example, Lifinity’s red line would be tinkering with his protocol specs or logic, and the goal is to honour the partnership agreement.
Solend OTOH is concerned with the unfair grant, a centralization of governance power, and non-TVL maximizing gauges (though it is unclear to me what point is of most concern to them; maybe there are also other points).

Once each party has defined this, hop on a call, look at the common ground, and discuss potential compromises…

1 Like

Also want to note that right after the previous vote 17 ended, and i saw durden say lifinity was going to work on this change. I said If the change went live I would have to react.

1 Like

This would be a proper redesign of the gauges, so that they actually achieve Marinade’s goals.

However, given Solend has sent this on-chain, the outcome of the vote is likely to come before we present a new design to the community. I’d rather we do not shoot from the hip on the first draft, given how thoroughly the current approach seems to have failed at either increasing TVL or incentivizing liquidity.

Is it too much to ask for people to ask what Lollipop’s relationship is to Lifinity rather than assume he’s a representative? I don’t understand why making unfounded assumptions should be the norm. Do I have to issue a disclaimer each time Lollipop does something reckless, because there will be new chefs who are seeing him act for the first time and not know about my comments in the past?

1 Like

Unfortunately i cant think of something that can help you there. However, I can confirm that Nope and I have stopped insisting that he is representing Lifinity. Nothing much more i can do there honestly.

Hope you dont see us as insinuating that Lollipop represents Lifinity, cause it’s clear to us he doesnt. However, he does go around acting like he does.

1 Like

If this is referring to my post, I was merely pointing out a possible outcome, not a threat at all. It was not phrased to be a threat. I simply wanted to highlight that since it seems some people in mDAO needs things to be highlighted.

1 Like

No worries I see that you guys have moved on from that :+1:

1 Like