I did a study of GMX and SNX to gain an understanding of the assumptions and analysis that were made. I believe you have done an excellent job considering this is the first protocol of its kind on Shibarium.
I strongly support the proposal. I understand that adjustments may be necessary after the product has been active for a while and you have actual numbers to work with.
I do not see where “ponzi” comes in. Convenience fees aren’t illegal when disclosed ahead of time. Increasing your gas fee on any chain so that your transaction can process faster is technically a convenience fee, and nobody complains.
The zap function isn’t just a convenience function. It took extra work to add that functionality and devs have the right to charge for its use. It is not as if users don’t have another option.
If you buy a Tesla you must pay for every extra feature that is not included in the base model, because these extra features don’t prevent you from driving the car. They are extra.
Nothing is in “fine print” here. Everything is disclosed.
Manufacturers have a responsibility to provide a manual, but not a responsibility to force people to read it.
People don’t like paying fees or taxes, but these are necessary to provide infrastructure.
One of the great problems in crypto is that so many will rather delegate responsibility to others rather than assume it. The product has been made available for testing.
As I have said, there will be room for tweaking. But the due diligence that has been done on this product is exceptional. In fact, if all builders and developers did as much due diligence crypto will be a much safer space.
Exactly this^
But we need to keep an eye on the boners, is it lucrative enough? will the vesting part be too much of a wrestling? is been liquid good enough if not farming?
But yeah this is a very good start, lets start from here at lets start crushing and tune later!
-havnt said it yet, but yeah fully support this! <3
Absolutely!
We should not make perfection the enemy of the great or of progress, nor should we be stuck in analysis paralysis.
As Buzz said today based on analysis of Russian traffic to Bingx they went with that exchange. If it becomes necessary to do something to attract more Bone holders it will be done.
There should be a fee for using the Zap. I’ll leave it to others to determine how much that should be.
The zap does not increase transactions. It reduces it, because it does in one transaction what will otherwise take 3 or more transactions depending on which tokens you already have.
If one of the objectives is to increase transactions on Shibarium to burn more Shib, the use of the zap should be discouraged. One way to do that is to charge a fee. A third of fees that could potentially go to burning Shib could potentially be lost to the zap feature.
I’m in support of this proposal, only suggestion is that depending on the zapped amount a dialog box pops up to either warn or encourage the investor to use the other method of providing LP.
First, there’s already a fee. This would increase it. Secondly, although manual LP formation creates more transactions, I believe the one-click feature creates more cycles, it is one of the most attractive features for time limited K9 enthusiasts. We should keep it that way and revisit in 3 months with stats and graphs. We are rebalancing KnBONE this should be more than enough to cover the 1 percent, if not revisit. It’s a win either way but I ALWAYS root for the little guy! I’m a little guy! That’s the purpose of this ecosystem, to give the little guys a shot against the monopolistic shadow cats.
If the 1 percent went to Burn Knine or Shib I’d be more inclined but truly don’t see a need right now.
Lastly, I trust Buzz and do believe he’s looking out for all of our interests Shibariums, K9s, Yours, Mine and His!
I may be wrong, but I believe only the base fee goes to Shibarium. The extra fee goes to K9.
In adding liquidity yourself you pay the base fee with every transaction. Not sure if the same process happens internally when using the zap. If not, then only one base fee is paid for the transaction. I stand to be corrected.
I think it’s a case of the chicken and the egg, which comes first? Do we want to see an explosion of transactions on Shibarium, which is a very important statistic that investors look at or focus on K9 enthusiasts? I think we grow Sibarium, which attracts more Bone and Shib holders. There are more Shib holders, and it seems what is most important to them is burning Shib.
Either way I agree with you that the zap is a very attractive feature, and I like that it’s available.
I like to generate as many transactions as possible on Shibarium. So, in the test environment I go the long route of adding liquidity rather than zapping. In the live environment that is what I’ll also do.
Currently I think I’m generating about 25-30 transactions per day on puppynet going the long route.
Convenience fees should be charged, but they should be reasonable and have a way of avoiding them. This specific zap feature was a feature the development team did not need to build, but was a priority to include in the build so that it was easier to use, and to foster innovation like that (in all tech products) there needs to be a financial motivation and rationale for the DAO in my opinion
There will certainly be room for tweaking, and just like GMX, we will be monitoring for 90 days each Wednesday and taking community feedback along the way to ensure that a proper balance is met that comes close to these projections. Projections are never perfect, so this is a moving target
I also agree, I feel like I splitting hairs but that’s what this forum is for plus I like the opposing views. Thanks for your input and Shibarium placed first seems like a solid argument. Love how this is shaping up regardless.
According to the previous vote the K9 Finance DAO auditors found a small “edge-case” that could pose a vulnerability to the product. This edge case was the lack of a “minimum lock constraint” within the financial model, which is meant to ensure that “lock period” must be > “vesting period for esKNINE” to give a user the ability to vest their esKNINE to KNINE
Therefore, it was recommended that the esKNINE vesting period be reduced from 365 days to 179 days and enable the Minimum Lock Constraint. Functionally, this means that a user must be locking their KNINE for a minimum of 6 months to vest their esKNINE
All other variables remain the same, but a cheatsheet here is attached.
Within the parameters of the successful vote, the management council was granted 90-day discretionary control to monitor and adjust these variables to optimize the product.
