Bond Protocol-owned Liquidity with ApeBond

General
21

Thanks for taking the time to provide feedback here Couch_Adventures

I don’t quite understand what you mean by saying if you hadn’t reduce the taxes liquidity debt wouldn’t have been an issue. Were the DAO using the reflect fees, liquidating half of those to put it back into the liquidity pool as a KNINE-WETH LP pair?

This is not voting away ownership, it’s actually building liquidity that the K9 Finance DAO 100% owns, which is great, because the DAO will control the liquidity making sure liquidity fluctuations are limited even if market sentiment isn’t great. Liquidity scales as the project grows, so closing your liquidity dept could be a one and done type of deal.

We slid into no dms ser :rofl:, factually incorrect, and because we operate a B-B-C type of business we have a large community ready to get to know you guys, but our true value proposition is helping build POL for the partners we work with.

5 Likes
22

Hey Ryan! Thank you for your comment.

We’ve been operating as a Bonding Protocol for nearly 2 years now, helping projects grow their liquidity and what we often find is that projects wait too long to start building liquidity. Keep in mind that this is not a sprint and should be seen as a slow and sticky process which’ll take multiple months to complete. Throughout these months we will provide constant feedback in the form of reports and links to track the Bond(s) live.

We’re confident in the depth of analysis we conduct, combined with our technology and supportive community, which positions us as the premier bonding service in cryptocurrency. We’ve successfully facilitated Bonds for reputable projects like Floki, ORBS, Decubate, AiTech, and ChainGPT. With approximately 120 trusted partners relying on us for their liquidity raising endeavors, we believe we’re the ideal choice for the task at hand. We welcome any competition in the space and are prepared to defend our position.

4 Likes
23

Thanks for your comments here Archangel. I’ll try and address then point by point.

Total Costs:

There must have been a misunderstanding here, the fees are already incorporated into the discounts displayed on our dashboard link. So your calculation seems off → on average, we’ve observed a 13% discount across all the Bonds we’ve facilitated, accounting for fees. However, it’s essential to note that this figure represents an average, and we can’t guarantee exact returns.

Vesting:

The length of vesting is something that could be changed by the protocol involved. So if you think this should be longer than we’d be able to change that to 60, 90, 120 days, no problem. But keep in mind the longer the vest the higher the discount would become, so historically we have seen better results with 30 day vesting programs.

Moreover, it’s crucial to understand that this process is a slow one. Our team of data experts has carefully studied your tokenomics, considering factors like upcoming token unlocks, based on the vast amount of data we’ve collected over the past two years from similar bond initiatives. We’re taking a cautious and gradual approach to bonding to avoid putting excessive pressure on the liquidity pool and token price. With our specialized data analysis tools and bonding algorithms, we’re equipped to manage this balancing act effectively.

Lastly, the vest doesn’t end for all the Bonders all at once causing a cliff, that’s not what we aim to do. First of all we aim to encourage bonders to become token holders with pushing them to your community through marketing, encouraging them to get involved. Secondly, every single Bonders vesting time starts when they purchase the Bond. So say someone purchases today and I purchase 7 days from now, my vest would only start in 7 days’ time where theirs began today.

Opportunity Cost:

I think the opportunity cost that you’ve lost would have been taking ETH from the treasury to add more liquidity (which is needed according to our analysis) to your liquidity pool. That is ETH that could have been earning APY which is now deployed to your liquidity pool.

And again that 25% is incorrect and wouldn’t be immediate - our backend fee is taking as we continue Bonding. I would urge you to look at the tokenomics and look at the KNINE specifically divvied out for liquidity incentives and growth. Bonding would be using the tokens set aside for liquidity in a way that brings a return on investment, POL, and sustainability to the DAO. In the past we only had farming which is essentially giving your token away with 0% return, Bonding has an 87% return on average which is dramatically better in our opinion.

5 Likes
24

Personally I still believe that the K9 Round table or the treasury should have a complete evaluation of this contract to properly assess it validity. I don’t think the DOA has the ability to review all aspects and have an informed vote on this project. I believe this should have no less than a 3 person team properly evaluating this project and give informed feedback.

2 Likes
25

This. That is a great point. Why not just pair with ETH?

1 Like
26

I agree with Joy here. Although I don’t fully grasp the ins and outs, it definitely feels off to just go with ApeBond before we see other options, especially when I don’t see how exactly it benefits the K9 community, but it does benefit ApeBond

2 Likes
27

I mean no offense by this, but why is there a rep of Ape-bond in the K9 DAO pitching their stuff to us?
Wouldn’t this be an obvious conflict of interest? This guy, by principal, can’t vote it down and has a vested interest for this to pass as a “yes.”
This whole thing feels off to me. Not trying to be alarmist, but I definitely think this should be thoroughly deliberated upon before passing anything.

1 Like
28

Good day ApeBond team,

It is interesting that your team would offer a liquidity solution to K9 Finance.

One side of the K9 operation is that of Liquidity Solution for #Shibarium blockchain L1, L2 & L3/network.

Should we as a community & DAO really require additional liquidity, we should first look inward to #Shibarium partners and ourselves.

Please note that the reduction of our Buy & Sell taxes was to help the community grow. Not for the need to outsource our liquidity needs.

Our community, DAO and Partners work with integrity for WeAreAllRoyshi.

3 Likes
29

Hey Ralehale! Thanks for your feedback here.

We dropped a proposal, because the team asked us to, but please deliberate or maybe the Round Table would be the ideal group to do so.

6 Likes
30

Apes love Shibarium too :heart_eyes:! We’ve proven our tech in combination with a track record over the last 2 years in building sustainable liquidity for multiple other protocols. I don’t think there would be a Shib alternative to be honest (but if you’ll have us we’d like to be that protocol too :saluting_face:).

Keep in mind that $KNINE’s liquidity is currently held on Eth and we’ve seen incredible traction on mainnet thus far.

7 Likes
31

I like this idea as it will bring liquidity to the project and more eyes from external audiences.

2 Likes
32

Sorry for the late reply; My belief, at this stage, is the project’s complexity hasn’t been properly aligned. Adding this into the mechanics of the token right now is something that we must consider at a later time.

Though your option for managing and diverting liquidity is well thought out, I still stand on putting a pause on your proposal.

Thank you.

1 Like
33

I think it is important to recognize that these efforts are not mutually exclusive. By supporting this proposal, K9 DAO can also still add its own liquidity to the pool and continue building liquidity. This proposal, in my perspective, gives the opportunity for new holders (and existing community members) to become an active member of the DAO for a discounted price, while benefiting the project’s liquidity holdings.

The DAO has the opportunity to use only KNINE tokens (and retain ETH / stables for other uses including additional marketing, own liquidity, grant programmes, and more) to increase the liquidity profile of the token.

The bonding process, from my understanding, is a beneficial way to price KNINE tokens at a slight discount to users purchasing them using the LP tokens so that it is priced according to the demand in the market for a unique product like this

9 Likes
34

I want to simplify the pros and cons for the community, as I see them, for this proposal.

Pros:

  • Build more liquidity for the token, which assists with more stable price action
  • Retain ownership (and more importantly flexibility) with stablecoins / ETH in the K9 DAO treasury for future uses (which may include additional K9 DAO owned liquidity being added with KNINE/ETH as this proposal is not mutually exclusive)
  • The LP tokens will be owned by K9 DAO and can be locked for a significant amount of time, and also moved to Shibarium at any time after the KNINE token is bridged there (similar to any LP that the K9 DAO would own)
  • K9 DAO (versus users) owning LP gives more confidence that the DAO will have liquidity for a long period of time. Other user-generated LP programs typically offer project tokens (i.e. KNINE) as a staking reward for adding LP. The difference there is that those users who are adding the LP can remove them at any time, whereas with this proposal, the K9 DAO would own that LP and be able to lock and ensure that it will be long-term liquidity

Cons:

  • Fees on the transaction, however I think it is unrealistic to expect 3rd party service providers to provide their service without generating revenue and there are marketing activations that will give exposure not only to K9 DAO, but also Shibarium. I see this as a way to get involved with a community who’s very into DeFi but did not know about Shibarium prior to learning about K9 DAO
  • Issuing $200k of tokens into the market. This is the main trade off for me. Ultimately these new owners of these tokens will be new buyers and new holders and it will be our job as community members to create these newcomers into longterm, valuable members of the DAO by the time their tokens would unlock 30 days after purchase

I think as a community we need to decide on a key point: Is issuing $200k of tokens to new holders, who are purchasing at a slight discount, worth the benefits above of adding $200k in liquidity, gaining access to a new audience of holders, and reserving flexibility with the hard assets in the treasury to do many more initiatives.

Ultimately when I see this proposal I see the pros and cons, however I believe the pros outweigh the cons. If this is approved we’d need to work diligently in concert with the Ape Bond team to put together a great marketing campaign for this new product that brings a lot of new eyes and attention to K9 DAO that may have never heard of the project

10 Likes
35

This is the purpose of a DAO. Anyone can submit a proposal and as a community we need to welcome these proposals and evaluate them through the governance process

8 Likes
36

My main concern is with abscondence:

200K new coins is something anyone can easily usurp at this given moment in time. I myself have been increasing my own position in lieu of the projects mobile launch, as each moon phases I am patiently awaiting in the background. When it comes to bonding with liquidity provisions, I have no experience with this entire scope. It is something new that I myself must see the ins and outs of instead of reading about it on paper. Comprehension of this code being “married” to ours, to the tune said in the beginning, has me wanting to attempt things I wish I could not think of.

Because of this I may need to spend time within their confides to flush out a weakness. Which is something I cannot do. Notwithstanding, I still stand by my original stance; I do still believe we need to consider the competition at some point before we make anything final.

5 Likes
37

I suggest a test run before committing large amounts of capital. Let’s try 100k rather than 200k for 1st round, track and measure the success of the 1st round, if metrics are met or exceeded, let’s have a 2nd round. each vested round increases by 30 days (ex round 1 30 day lock, round 2 60 day lock, by the time the unlocks come around K9 product would have been already released and we have a good opportunity of converting them to long term holders.

9 Likes
38

Maybe the timing is off a bit…I just wonder if it’s a bit early in the project for the spend?

4 Likes
39

I also like Rugrats suggestion

5 Likes
40

Nothing wrong with a test run for sure. $100k is still a healthy chunk and well on the way to bolstering liquidity. I like compromise.

7 Likes